Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dishonor of cheque - presumption that cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, burden on accused to prove contrary. Supreme Court observations: While deciding appeal against acquittal, High Court should see if evidence was properly appreciated, finding illegal or affected by error of law/fact, and if trial court's view was possible based on material. Presumption of innocence gets concretized on acquittal, higher threshold to rebut in appeal. Accused did not prove cheque issued as security. Statement of account showed subsisting liability when cheque issued. Blank cheque can be filled by holder if liability exists as per Bir Singh case. Once presumption drawn, onus shifts to accused as per Rohit bhai case. Complaint cannot be dismissed for want of evidence on debt/liability if cheque dishonored for account closed as per Rohit bhai case. Notice deemed served if refused as per C.C. Alavi case. Ingredients of Section 138 satisfied, trial court erred in acquitting accused. Judgment set aside, accused convicted u/s 138.
Dishonor of cheque - presumption that cheque was issued in discharge of legal liability, burden on accused to prove contrary. Supreme Court observations: While deciding appeal against acquittal, High Court should see if evidence was properly appreciated, finding illegal or affected by error of law/fact, and if trial court's view was possible based on material. Presumption of innocence gets concretized on acquittal, higher threshold to rebut in appeal. Accused did not prove cheque issued as security. Statement of account showed subsisting liability when cheque issued. Blank cheque can be filled by holder if liability exists as per Bir Singh case. Once presumption drawn, onus shifts to accused as per Rohit bhai case. Complaint cannot be dismissed for want of evidence on debt/liability if cheque dishonored for account closed as per Rohit bhai case. Notice deemed served if refused as per C.C. Alavi case. Ingredients of Section 138 satisfied, trial court erred in acquitting accused. Judgment set aside, accused convicted u/s 138.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
