Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends liability...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility averments.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends liability for dishonoured company cheques beyond the signatory to directors who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred. At the summoning stage, a Magistrate need only determine whether the complaint and supporting material disclose a prima facie case, not whether conviction is supported. Allegations that directors controlled company affairs, together with the petitioner's directorship during relevant transactions, were treated as sufficient foundational averments for trial. Questions concerning actual managerial involvement and non-participation require evidence before the Trial Court. The challenge to the summoning orders and cheque-dishonour proceedings was rejected.
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends liability for dishonoured company cheques beyond the signatory to directors who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence occurred. At the summoning stage, a Magistrate need only determine whether the complaint and supporting material disclose a prima facie case, not whether conviction is supported. Allegations that directors controlled company affairs, together with the petitioner's directorship during relevant transactions, were treated as sufficient foundational averments for trial. Questions concerning actual managerial involvement and non-participation require evidence before the Trial Court. The challenge to the summoning orders and cheque-dishonour proceedings was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
