Search Results for "section 66(1)"

344 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 344 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition in Cheque Bounce Case — Conviction Under Section 138 NI Act Upheld. Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt Under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act Not Rebutted by Accused.

The present criminal revision petition was filed by the accused-petitioner, Sri R. Rajappa, challenging the judgment of conviction and order on senten...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Enforces Foreign Arbitral Award in Favour of Petitioner in Iron Ore Fines Sale Dispute. Rejects Respondent's Challenge Based on Public Policy and Natural Justice Under Sections 44-49 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Noble Resources Ltd., a Hong Kong company, entered into a contract on 9 May 2008 with the respondent, Twenty First Century Wire Roads ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Prosecution of Directors for Delayed TDS Deposit Under Section 276B Income Tax Act — Delay Not Equivalent to Failure to Pay. Vicarious Liability Requires Specific Averments of Being In-Charge and Responsible; No Notice Under Section 2(35) or Order Under Section 201(1) Passed.

The petitioners, directors of M/s. Hubtown Ltd., challenged the issuance of process against them under Section 276B r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act, 19...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Directors in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Vicarious Liability. Directors Not in Charge of Day-to-Day Operations Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Without Specific Allegations.

The petitioners, who were directors of Shri Sainath Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd. (a cooperative bank), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Conviction in Consumer Protection Act Penalty Case for Violation of Summary Trial Procedure. Failure to Record Plea and Conduct Trial as Per Sections 254 and 262 CrPC Renders Proceedings Void.

The petitioner, Suhas Ratnakar Morey, was convicted by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) under Section 2...