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...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
A security cheque was held unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation. The Court noted inconsistent versions about how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, non-examination of the intermediary witness, and no crystallised liability arising from contractual disputes at that stage. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court applied the settled rule that interference is justified only when the acquittal is palpably wrong or legally unsustainable. As the trial court's view was a possible and sound one, the strengthened presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was affirmed.
A security cheque was held unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation. The Court noted inconsistent versions about how the cheque came into the complainant's possession, non-examination of the intermediary witness, and no crystallised liability arising from contractual disputes at that stage. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court applied the settled rule that interference is justified only when the acquittal is palpably wrong or legally unsustainable. As the trial court's view was a possible and sound one, the strengthened presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
