Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Section 138 of the NI Act is not confined to cheques issued for the drawer's own personal liability; a cheque drawn towards a legally enforceable liability of another person may also attract penal consequences on dishonour. The Court therefore rejected the objection based on absence of privity and the claim that the petitioner was not a party to the underlying consent award, holding that the complaint could proceed on a prima facie basis. Challenges that no amount was due, that the cheque was a gift, or that it formed part of a without-prejudice settlement raised disputed factual defences that could not be resolved at the process stage and had to be tested at trial.
Section 138 of the NI Act is not confined to cheques issued for the drawer's own personal liability; a cheque drawn towards a legally enforceable liability of another person may also attract penal consequences on dishonour. The Court therefore rejected the objection based on absence of privity and the claim that the petitioner was not a party to the underlying consent award, holding that the complaint could proceed on a prima facie basis. Challenges that no amount was due, that the cheque was a gift, or that it formed part of a without-prejudice settlement raised disputed factual defences that could not be resolved at the process stage and had to be tested at trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
