Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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 dismissed the revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused admitted signing the dishonoured cheque but failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 that it was issued to discharge legal liability. The court held that even security cheques attract criminal liability when dishonoured. The accused's defence lacked credible evidence, and proper notice was served as evidenced by acknowledgment bearing his signatures. The trial court's compensation award of Rs. 3,44,000 (double the cheque amount) was upheld, considering eight-year litigation delay, interest loss, and legal expenses. The HC affirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence absent patent illegality or perversity, upholding concurrent findings below.
The HC dismissed the revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused admitted signing the dishonoured cheque but failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 that it was issued to discharge legal liability. The court held that even security cheques attract criminal liability when dishonoured. The accused's defence lacked credible evidence, and proper notice was served as evidenced by acknowledgment bearing his signatures. The trial court's compensation award of Rs. 3,44,000 (double the cheque amount) was upheld, considering eight-year litigation delay, interest loss, and legal expenses. The HC affirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence absent patent illegality or perversity, upholding concurrent findings below.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
