Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case involves a petition to quash proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to failure to implead the company as an accused. The petitioner, a Managing Director, was accused of issuing a cheque on behalf of the company. The court found non-maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner as the company was not made an accused despite the cheque being issued on its behalf. Citing the Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy case, the court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of impleading the company in cases involving cheques issued on its behalf. Following the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in expeditious trial of cases, the High Court held that, it is clear that Section 202(2) CrPC is not applicable in the present proceedings which is u/s 138 N.I. Act.
The case involves a petition to quash proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to failure to implead the company as an accused. The petitioner, a Managing Director, was accused of issuing a cheque on behalf of the company. The court found non-maintainability of the complaint against the petitioner as the company was not made an accused despite the cheque being issued on its behalf. Citing the Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy case, the court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of impleading the company in cases involving cheques issued on its behalf. Following the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in expeditious trial of cases, the High Court held that, it is clear that Section 202(2) CrPC is not applicable in the present proceedings which is u/s 138 N.I. Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
