Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
