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...
Dishonor of Cheque - Plaint was filed that Cheque was issued as security and misused by the defendant - Jurisdiction of Revisional Court in rejecting the plaint - In the instant case, on a reading paragraph 13 of the plaint, it is evident that cheque issued had been dishonoured and defendant no.1 had issued notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 10th June, 2009, to the plaintiff and its Managing Director replied to the same through their advocate on 23rd June, 2009. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff by seeking the aforesaid reliefs is in substance frustrating the right of defendant no.1 to take steps under the provisions of N.I. Act for releasing the amount of cheque issued by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 by filing a civil suit and/or by initiating a criminal prosecution - Plaint was rightly rejected - HC has erroneously set aside the order of the revisional court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case- SC
Dishonor of Cheque - Plaint was filed that Cheque was issued as security and misused by the defendant - Jurisdiction of Revisional Court in rejecting the plaint - In the instant case, on a reading paragraph 13 of the plaint, it is evident that cheque issued had been dishonoured and defendant no.1 had issued notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 10th June, 2009, to the plaintiff and its Managing Director replied to the same through their advocate on 23rd June, 2009. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff by seeking the aforesaid reliefs is in substance frustrating the right of defendant no.1 to take steps under the provisions of N.I. Act for releasing the amount of cheque issued by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 by filing a civil suit and/or by initiating a criminal prosecution - Plaint was rightly rejected - HC has erroneously set aside the order of the revisional court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case- SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
