Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
The court interpreted Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that managing directors and joint managing directors are responsible for the company's conduct by virtue of their position. Signatories of dishonored checks are also covered u/s 141(2). In the absence of averments u/s 50(1) of the 1984 Act in the complaint, the trial court could not take cognizance against the directors. However, the managing director would be responsible for the company's business. The complaint was quashed against the directors but allowed against the managing director and the company. The Supreme Court's order was modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.