Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Gujarat High Court held that the applicant, as a director and signatory of cheques, can be accused u/s 319 of CrPC despite non-service of notice u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. The court emphasized the applicant's responsibility for company conduct. Citing Krisha Texport and Capital Markets case, the court found prosecution without notice valid. Impleadment u/s 319 after statutory period expiry is permissible pre-cognizance. The trial court's order was deemed lawful as no abuse of process occurred. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged.
The Gujarat High Court held that the applicant, as a director and signatory of cheques, can be accused u/s 319 of CrPC despite non-service of notice u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. The court emphasized the applicant's responsibility for company conduct. Citing Krisha Texport and Capital Markets case, the court found prosecution without notice valid. Impleadment u/s 319 after statutory period expiry is permissible pre-cognizance. The trial court's order was deemed lawful as no abuse of process occurred. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
