Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
