Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 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" ?
This legal case pertains to the dishonor of a cheque and the presumption of innocence. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused solely on the ground that repeated presentation of the cheque and issuance of notice are not permissible. It cited a Supreme Court precedent allowing repeated presentation and successive notices, as long as the requirements u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are satisfied. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal, as the accused had no opportunity to get findings on other grounds raised before the First Appellate Court. The scope of appeal against conviction is wider than against acquittal, necessitating a fresh consideration by the lower court.
This legal case pertains to the dishonor of a cheque and the presumption of innocence. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused solely on the ground that repeated presentation of the cheque and issuance of notice are not permissible. It cited a Supreme Court precedent allowing repeated presentation and successive notices, as long as the requirements u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are satisfied. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh disposal, as the accused had no opportunity to get findings on other grounds raised before the First Appellate Court. The scope of appeal against conviction is wider than against acquittal, necessitating a fresh consideration by the lower court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
