Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
For dishonour of a cheque drawn on a company account, the company must be arraigned as an accused before vicarious liability can attach to an authorised signatory or other persons responsible for its business. Omission of the company is a foundational defect that prevents valid cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 319 CrPC cannot be used to cure that defect by subsequently impleading the company after the statutory limitation period; any fresh complaint remains subject to limitation and delayed cognizance requires sufficient cause. The Supreme Court quashed the complaint and consequential proceedings, and held that the direction to suo motu arraign the company exceeded jurisdiction.
For dishonour of a cheque drawn on a company account, the company must be arraigned as an accused before vicarious liability can attach to an authorised signatory or other persons responsible for its business. Omission of the company is a foundational defect that prevents valid cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 319 CrPC cannot be used to cure that defect by subsequently impleading the company after the statutory limitation period; any fresh complaint remains subject to limitation and delayed cognizance requires sufficient cause. The Supreme Court quashed the complaint and consequential proceedings, and held that the direction to suo motu arraign the company exceeded jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
