Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of the director - appellant was in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company or not - The appellant argued against her vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that she was not involved in the company's day-to-day affairs and was not a signatory to the cheques in question. The court found the allegations insufficient to establish the appellant's liability and quashed the proceedings against her. - Mere directorship does not automatically entail liability. - The court noted that the complaint lacked specific averments demonstrating how the appellant was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs or responsible for its conduct.
Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of the director - appellant was in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the Company or not - The appellant argued against her vicarious liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that she was not involved in the company's day-to-day affairs and was not a signatory to the cheques in question. The court found the allegations insufficient to establish the appellant's liability and quashed the proceedings against her. - Mere directorship does not automatically entail liability. - The court noted that the complaint lacked specific averments demonstrating how the appellant was in charge of the company's day-to-day affairs or responsible for its conduct.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
