Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The Kerala High Court reviewed a case involving dishonor of a...
Dishonor of Cheque: Suspension of sentence. Sufficient reason for ordering a deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation, not assigned. Matter restored back
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Kerala High Court reviewed a case involving dishonor of a cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined the suspension of sentence under section 389 of the CrPC and found that the Sessions Judge did not provide sufficient reasoning for ordering a deposit of 20% of the compensation imposed by the Trial Court. The High Court set aside the order directing the petitioner to make the deposit and instructed the Sessions Court to reconsider the applications with a fresh hearing for both parties within one month.
The Kerala High Court reviewed a case involving dishonor of a cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined the suspension of sentence under section 389 of the CrPC and found that the Sessions Judge did not provide sufficient reasoning for ordering a deposit of 20% of the compensation imposed by the Trial Court. The High Court set aside the order directing the petitioner to make the deposit and instructed the Sessions Court to reconsider the applications with a fresh hearing for both parties within one month.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
