Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dishonour of Cheque - mentioning the petitioners in CRR 196 of 2016 as ‘non-directors’ and in CRR 197 of 2016 as ‘directors’ - High Court held that, at the relevant point of time, excepting the present petitioners, there were no other ‘directors’ or ‘nondirectors’, in the said company and also that the concerned cheques were issued by them. Considering the attending facts and circumstances as discussed above and the object and purpose of the statute itself as delineated above, this Court hardly finds any impropriety in the orders regarding taking cognizance of offence u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Dishonour of Cheque - mentioning the petitioners in CRR 196 of 2016 as ‘non-directors’ and in CRR 197 of 2016 as ‘directors’ - High Court held that, at the relevant point of time, excepting the present petitioners, there were no other ‘directors’ or ‘nondirectors’, in the said company and also that the concerned cheques were issued by them. Considering the attending facts and circumstances as discussed above and the object and purpose of the statute itself as delineated above, this Court hardly finds any impropriety in the orders regarding taking cognizance of offence u/s 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
