Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The HC upheld the validity of the summoning order under Sections 208 and 210 BNS issued by the Special CJM (Customs), affirming the trial court's jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant. The appellant's failure to respond to repeated summons from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence justified the summons and subsequent trial. Given the offences carry a maximum imprisonment of one month, there was no risk of arrest upon appearance. The appellant's request to appear via representative or video conferencing was deemed premature and should have been made to the Directorate or trial court, where it remains open for consideration. Finding no procedural irregularity or illegality, the HC dismissed the application under Section 528 BNS, directing the appellant to appear before the trial court and assert any available defenses, which the trial court must adjudicate in accordance with law.
The HC upheld the validity of the summoning order under Sections 208 and 210 BNS issued by the Special CJM (Customs), affirming the trial court's jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant. The appellant's failure to respond to repeated summons from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence justified the summons and subsequent trial. Given the offences carry a maximum imprisonment of one month, there was no risk of arrest upon appearance. The appellant's request to appear via representative or video conferencing was deemed premature and should have been made to the Directorate or trial court, where it remains open for consideration. Finding no procedural irregularity or illegality, the HC dismissed the application under Section 528 BNS, directing the appellant to appear before the trial court and assert any available defenses, which the trial court must adjudicate in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.