Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
A cheque originally issued as security can support a Section 138 prosecution if a legally enforceable liability exists on the date of presentation; once execution of a signed cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate for the payee, and the drawer must rebut them at trial. On the pleadings, emails and repayment discussions prima facie indicated a subsisting liability, so the security-cheque defence did not justify quashing. For company liability, specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for the business are sufficient at the threshold; a managing director and cheque signatory may be proceeded against, while the non-signatory director was not immune where adequate allegations were made. The complaint was allowed to proceed.
A cheque originally issued as security can support a Section 138 prosecution if a legally enforceable liability exists on the date of presentation; once execution of a signed cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate for the payee, and the drawer must rebut them at trial. On the pleadings, emails and repayment discussions prima facie indicated a subsisting liability, so the security-cheque defence did not justify quashing. For company liability, specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for the business are sufficient at the threshold; a managing director and cheque signatory may be proceeded against, while the non-signatory director was not immune where adequate allegations were made. The complaint was allowed to proceed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
