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...
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a complaint u/s 482 CrPC regarding dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner, a Chief Financial Officer, was held liable u/s 138 and 141 of the NI Act as a 'Key Managerial Personnel' of the company and signatory to the cheque. The complaint did not rely on u/s 28 of the NI Act but on u/s 141 to implicate the petitioner. The court distinguished the case from Sivagurunatha Pillai, stating it did not apply. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present defenses at the Trial Court.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a complaint u/s 482 CrPC regarding dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner, a Chief Financial Officer, was held liable u/s 138 and 141 of the NI Act as a 'Key Managerial Personnel' of the company and signatory to the cheque. The complaint did not rely on u/s 28 of the NI Act but on u/s 141 to implicate the petitioner. The court distinguished the case from Sivagurunatha Pillai, stating it did not apply. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present defenses at the Trial Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
