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...
Complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not maintainable where the cheque was issued on behalf of a company but the company itself was not arrayed as an accused. Applying the principle that vicarious liability of directors or authorised signatories arises only when the principal offender, namely the drawer company, is before the court, the court held that arraignment of the company is a mandatory condition precedent. On that basis, the complaints and summoning orders against the petitioner alone were set aside, with liberty to pursue any remedy available in law.
Complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not maintainable where the cheque was issued on behalf of a company but the company itself was not arrayed as an accused. Applying the principle that vicarious liability of directors or authorised signatories arises only when the principal offender, namely the drawer company, is before the court, the court held that arraignment of the company is a mandatory condition precedent. On that basis, the complaints and summoning orders against the petitioner alone were set aside, with liberty to pursue any remedy available in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
