Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
For vicarious liability of a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct of business at the relevant time; mere designation as director, or signing board resolutions alone, is insufficient. On that basis, the summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Court also clarified that a prior revision does not, by itself, bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which remains available to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's view that Section 482 could not be invoked after revision was held legally erroneous.
For vicarious liability of a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct of business at the relevant time; mere designation as director, or signing board resolutions alone, is insufficient. On that basis, the summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Court also clarified that a prior revision does not, by itself, bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which remains available to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's view that Section 482 could not be invoked after revision was held legally erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
