Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
The dominant issue was whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could be invoked to quash a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act after the criminal revision had been finally decided. The Court held that final adjudication of a criminal revision exhausts the Court's power to reopen the conviction through inherent jurisdiction; earlier single-judge authority suggesting otherwise was not accepted as permitting such post-revisional interference, and a contrary view in a later case was treated as fact-specific and not laying down a binding principle. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to pursue permissible remedies. - HC
The dominant issue was whether inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could be invoked to quash a conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act after the criminal revision had been finally decided. The Court held that final adjudication of a criminal revision exhausts the Court's power to reopen the conviction through inherent jurisdiction; earlier single-judge authority suggesting otherwise was not accepted as permitting such post-revisional interference, and a contrary view in a later case was treated as fact-specific and not laying down a binding principle. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to pursue permissible remedies. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
