Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
