Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The complaint was time-barred and filed beyond the stipulated period u/s 142(b) of the NI Act. The demand notice was served to the accused company through email on 11.03.2022, which constituted effective service on the directors as well. The limitation period commenced from the date of service, and the complaint filed on 28.04.2022 was beyond the prescribed time limit without seeking condonation of delay. The trial court took cognizance without considering the delay, rendering the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the criminal complaint was quashed, and the order taking cognizance was set aside by the High Court.
The complaint was time-barred and filed beyond the stipulated period u/s 142(b) of the NI Act. The demand notice was served to the accused company through email on 11.03.2022, which constituted effective service on the directors as well. The limitation period commenced from the date of service, and the complaint filed on 28.04.2022 was beyond the prescribed time limit without seeking condonation of delay. The trial court took cognizance without considering the delay, rendering the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the criminal complaint was quashed, and the order taking cognizance was set aside by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
