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...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 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 a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,65,000/-. The HC upheld the conviction, finding the loan and non-repayment established on balance of probabilities. Regarding jurisdictional challenge, the HC held that under the special provisions of Section 138, the Metropolitan Magistrate possessed authority to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, making the imposed fine legally valid despite exceeding general Cr.P.C. limits under Section 29.
The HC dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- which was dishonoured twice due to insufficient funds. The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,65,000/-. The HC upheld the conviction, finding the loan and non-repayment established on balance of probabilities. Regarding jurisdictional challenge, the HC held that under the special provisions of Section 138, the Metropolitan Magistrate possessed authority to impose fine up to twice the cheque amount, making the imposed fine legally valid despite exceeding general Cr.P.C. limits under Section 29.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
