//
archives

Special economic zone

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Cheque dishonor case = under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is a joint account holder. The said principle is an exception to Section 141 of the N.I. Act which would have no application in the case on hand. The proceedings filed under Section 138 cannot be used as an arm twisting tactics to recover the amount allegedly due from the appellant. It cannot be said that the complainant has no remedy against the appellant but certainly not under Section 138. The culpability attached to dishonour of a cheque can, in no case “except in case of Section 141 of the N.I. Act” be extended to those on whose behalf the cheque is issued. This Court reiterates that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be made an accused in any proceeding under Section 138 of the Act.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40479 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 813 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9794 of 2010) Mrs. Aparna A. Shah …. Appellant(s) Versus M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) Leave … Continue reading

Section 245: Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable: Where under any of the provisions of this Act, a refund is found to be due to any person, the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may, in lieu of payment of the refund, set off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under this Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action proposed to be taken under this section.” 20. From a reading of the above Section, it is crystal clear that the Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may, in lieu of payment of the refund, set-off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under the Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action proposed to be taken under that Section. (emphasis supplied).On a perusal of the entire material documents including the impugned order, it is clearly evident that there is no intimation in writing to the petitioner-assessee before making such an adjustment of refund. No doubt, the respondent is empowered to make the adjustment of refund, but the same can be done only in the manner as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. It is conspicuous from the records that there is no intimation in writing to the petitioner before making such adjustment of refund. As the respondent has not followed the procedures prescribed under the provisions of the Act while adjusting the refund amount with the outstanding amount, the impugned order is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reaasonings, the impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for compliance of Section 245 of the Act, and thereafter, the respondent is at liberty to adjust the refund amount payable to the petitioner with the amount payable for the respective assessment year, in accordance with law. Such an exercise shall be completed by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Reported in/ published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/filename=41825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS     DATED: 30.4.2013   CORAM:   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN   W.P.No.8571 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013           M/s.Cognizant Technology Solutions India P. Ltd., 6th Floor, New No.165/Old No.110, Menon Eternity Building, St.Mary’s Road, Chennai-600 018 represented by its Director .. … Continue reading

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy – whether the appellant-herein has made out a case for bail. = Though it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is in no way connected with the persons in power, we are of the view that the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions. = Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.= Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal. 18) With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.

Page 1     REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3404 of 2013) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy …. Appellant(s) Versus Central Bureau of Investigation …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,101 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com