Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A joint complaint under s.138 NI Act covering dishonour of two cheques issued in favour of two different payees was held not maintainable to the extent it clubbed distinct offences and complainants, as neither the NI Act nor CrPC permits joinder of separate s.138 causes by multiple payees in one complaint; proceedings relating to the cheque issued to the second payee were quashed with liberty to file a separate complaint. Invocation of an arbitration clause was held not to bar prosecution since civil/arbitral and criminal remedies can proceed simultaneously, hence quashing was refused on that ground. The plea of premature filing was rejected because the complaint was filed beyond 15 days from first receipt of demand notice, so proceedings for the cheque issued to the first payee were allowed to continue - HC
A joint complaint under s.138 NI Act covering dishonour of two cheques issued in favour of two different payees was held not maintainable to the extent it clubbed distinct offences and complainants, as neither the NI Act nor CrPC permits joinder of separate s.138 causes by multiple payees in one complaint; proceedings relating to the cheque issued to the second payee were quashed with liberty to file a separate complaint. Invocation of an arbitration clause was held not to bar prosecution since civil/arbitral and criminal remedies can proceed simultaneously, hence quashing was refused on that ground. The plea of premature filing was rejected because the complaint was filed beyond 15 days from first receipt of demand notice, so proceedings for the cheque issued to the first payee were allowed to continue - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
