Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
Dishonour of cheque - Respondent (accused) denied issuing the cheques and claimed they were taken from his office by the complainant. - The Trial Court found the ledger produced by the complainant to be inadmissible as it lacked a certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act. - The Trial Court held that since the signatures on the cheques were admitted by the respondent, the presumption u/s 138 would arise. - The Trial Court found that the accused had raised a probable defense by asserting that he used to sell goods to the complainant and the cheques were not issued for any legally recoverable debt or liability. - The High Court emphasized the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittals, stating that unless the view taken by the Trial Court is impossible or perverse, interference is not warranted.
Dishonour of cheque - Respondent (accused) denied issuing the cheques and claimed they were taken from his office by the complainant. - The Trial Court found the ledger produced by the complainant to be inadmissible as it lacked a certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act. - The Trial Court held that since the signatures on the cheques were admitted by the respondent, the presumption u/s 138 would arise. - The Trial Court found that the accused had raised a probable defense by asserting that he used to sell goods to the complainant and the cheques were not issued for any legally recoverable debt or liability. - The High Court emphasized the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittals, stating that unless the view taken by the Trial Court is impossible or perverse, interference is not warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
