Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
