Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 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 petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
The HC dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's order directing refund of the Rs.1,00,000 deposited under s.143A of the N.I. Act to the accused/appellant. The appellate court had set aside the conviction and compensation order, leaving no subsisting order against the accused; consequently the deposited amount cannot be retained or adjusted as interim compensation in a fresh complaint filed under s.142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act absent any interlocutory order granting such relief. The HC found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's reasoning and declined to interfere, affirming the accused's right to refund and dismissing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
