Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
