Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
HC ruled that a Managing Director cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonored cheque that was not drawn by their company. While the petitioner, as MD of Kwality Ltd, handed over the dishonored cheque to the complainant, the cheque was actually drawn by DRTPL and signed by its director. The court clarified that Section 138 liability attaches to the drawer of the cheque and their company's responsible officers, not to third parties who merely deliver the instrument. Since the petitioner was not a director of DRTPL (the drawer company), merely delivering the cheque did not create liability under Section 138. Petition allowed.
HC ruled that a Managing Director cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonored cheque that was not drawn by their company. While the petitioner, as MD of Kwality Ltd, handed over the dishonored cheque to the complainant, the cheque was actually drawn by DRTPL and signed by its director. The court clarified that Section 138 liability attaches to the drawer of the cheque and their company's responsible officers, not to third parties who merely deliver the instrument. Since the petitioner was not a director of DRTPL (the drawer company), merely delivering the cheque did not create liability under Section 138. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
