NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
