Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
