Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5941 to 5960 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A complaint under s.138 NI Act was held not maintainable because the statutory demand notice was issued about seven months after dishonour, beyond the 30-day mandate in s.138(b), so no valid cause of action arose. Independently, the complaint was treated as time-barred since cognizance of a delayed complaint under s.142(b) requires an application showing sufficient cause and an order condoning delay, which were absent, rendering cognizance illegal; the complaint was therefore liable to rejection. The defence that the cheque was a "security cheque" raised disputed facts and, in any event, a security cheque can mature into enforceable liability. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the payee's bank branch fell within jurisdiction. Petition allowed. - HC
A complaint under s.138 NI Act was held not maintainable because the statutory demand notice was issued about seven months after dishonour, beyond the 30-day mandate in s.138(b), so no valid cause of action arose. Independently, the complaint was treated as time-barred since cognizance of a delayed complaint under s.142(b) requires an application showing sufficient cause and an order condoning delay, which were absent, rendering cognizance illegal; the complaint was therefore liable to rejection. The defence that the cheque was a "security cheque" raised disputed facts and, in any event, a security cheque can mature into enforceable liability. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld as the payee's bank branch fell within jurisdiction. Petition allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.