Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The High Court addressed a case involving the dishonour of a cheque and the imposition of a condition to deposit a specific amount u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that the appellate court must provide reasons for imposing such conditions and cannot issue a blanket order for all cases. The court highlighted the need for a speaking order when ordering a deposit, which can vary from the minimum prescribed amount. The High Court found the lower court's order unsustainable as it lacked proper reasoning and did not require the appellant to execute a bond. Consequently, the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was set aside, and the criminal case was allowed.
The High Court addressed a case involving the dishonour of a cheque and the imposition of a condition to deposit a specific amount u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that the appellate court must provide reasons for imposing such conditions and cannot issue a blanket order for all cases. The court highlighted the need for a speaking order when ordering a deposit, which can vary from the minimum prescribed amount. The High Court found the lower court's order unsustainable as it lacked proper reasoning and did not require the appellant to execute a bond. Consequently, the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was set aside, and the criminal case was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.