Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent settled the matter related to dishonor of cheque. The High Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Noting the non-obstante clause in Section 147, the Court held that compounding is controlled by this provision, not Section 320 of CrPC. Relying on K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the Court allowed compounding even after conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted u/s 138 of the Act.
The petitioner-accused and the complainant-respondent settled the matter related to dishonor of cheque. The High Court accepted the prayer for compounding the offence u/s 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. Noting the non-obstante clause in Section 147, the Court held that compounding is controlled by this provision, not Section 320 of CrPC. Relying on K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the Court allowed compounding even after conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner-accused was acquitted u/s 138 of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
