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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In a case involving dishonour of a cheque due to variance in signature, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the respondent, leading to invocation of Section 391 of Cr.P.C. The High Court held that evidence must include cross-examination to be complete, especially in cases under Section 138 NI Act where statutory presumption against the accused must be dislodged. Referring to Rambhau vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized that Section 391 Cr.P.C. allows for additional evidence to secure justice. As the respondent was not cross-examined and crucial transaction details required clarification, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition, highlighting the necessity of examining the respondent's mother as an additional witness.
In a case involving dishonour of a cheque due to variance in signature, the petitioner failed to cross-examine the respondent, leading to invocation of Section 391 of Cr.P.C. The High Court held that evidence must include cross-examination to be complete, especially in cases under Section 138 NI Act where statutory presumption against the accused must be dislodged. Referring to Rambhau vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized that Section 391 Cr.P.C. allows for additional evidence to secure justice. As the respondent was not cross-examined and crucial transaction details required clarification, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition, highlighting the necessity of examining the respondent's mother as an additional witness.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
