Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.