Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC allowed the revision application in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a company director, filed the complaint in his individual capacity without proper authorization or power of attorney from the company. The agreement was executed between two companies, requiring the complainant to represent the company rather than act personally. While lack of authorization constitutes a curable defect per Supreme Court precedent in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, the company failed to rectify this defect at any subsequent stage. The Court held that authorized persons must file complaints on behalf of and in the name of the principal, not in their personal capacity, making the complaint legally impermissible.
The HC allowed the revision application in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, a company director, filed the complaint in his individual capacity without proper authorization or power of attorney from the company. The agreement was executed between two companies, requiring the complainant to represent the company rather than act personally. While lack of authorization constitutes a curable defect per Supreme Court precedent in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals, the company failed to rectify this defect at any subsequent stage. The Court held that authorized persons must file complaints on behalf of and in the name of the principal, not in their personal capacity, making the complaint legally impermissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
