Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
