Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Where a cheque bears material alterations (amount/date), such change falls within Section 87 and will void the instrument as against a party who did not consent; if alterations were made by the drawer with intent to prevent payment, dishonour will attract liability under Section 138, but if made by the payee for undue benefit the criminal liability may not follow. Determination of who made the alteration is a question of fact for trial and cannot be decided at this stage; petitioner's challenge is therefore dismissed without prejudice to raising these factual/contention issues before the trial court. - HC
Where a cheque bears material alterations (amount/date), such change falls within Section 87 and will void the instrument as against a party who did not consent; if alterations were made by the drawer with intent to prevent payment, dishonour will attract liability under Section 138, but if made by the payee for undue benefit the criminal liability may not follow. Determination of who made the alteration is a question of fact for trial and cannot be decided at this stage; petitioner's challenge is therefore dismissed without prejudice to raising these factual/contention issues before the trial court. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
