Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Validity of a complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through a Power of Attorney. The court held that it can quash complaints at the pre-trial stage u/s 482 of CrPC if unimpeachable material indicates the accused was not involved or no offense is made out. However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, the court must examine whether the factual defense disproves the entire allegations. The complaint mentioned the authorized representative had personal knowledge and competence to file the case. While the petitioner raised questions about the attorney's capability, the extent of knowledge, and the validity of the compromise deed, these issues did not disprove the allegations and can be determined during trial after evidence is led. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner raised questions of fact and law better left for adjudication at the trial stage.
Validity of a complaint filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through a Power of Attorney. The court held that it can quash complaints at the pre-trial stage u/s 482 of CrPC if unimpeachable material indicates the accused was not involved or no offense is made out. However, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State, the court must examine whether the factual defense disproves the entire allegations. The complaint mentioned the authorized representative had personal knowledge and competence to file the case. While the petitioner raised questions about the attorney's capability, the extent of knowledge, and the validity of the compromise deed, these issues did not disprove the allegations and can be determined during trial after evidence is led. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner raised questions of fact and law better left for adjudication at the trial stage.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
