![THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.O.P.No.6694 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.3703 & 3705 of 2019 M/s. Vishaal Natural Food Products (I). For Petitioners : Mr.B.Satish Sundar For Respondent : Mr.R.Nalliyappan. [8/3, 18:12] Satis Sunder Mhc Advocate: Judgement of sathikumar kurup.j.quasing complaint under s.138 N.I act holding that security cheque given by the accused to complainant during course of business without a contract between them is not an enforceable debt within the meaning of s.138 of the said act.Proceeding of the lower court quashed. [8/3, 18:12] Sekarreporter1: Super](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
Recent Posts
- Justice L Victoria Gowri made the observations while allowing a petition filed by K Surya, a final-year B Tech student, who had accused Valliyoor all-women police station of harassing and compelling him to live with the woman. The woman told the court she became pregnant during a consensual relationship with the petitioner, who allegedly promised marriage but distanced himself later and refused to continue the relationship”
- Justice B Pugalendhi, who issued the directions while hearing a batch of petitions seeking to transfer the two cases to the CBI, said the motive for placing the cash could be related to fire safety licence scam. The bench directed the Director General of Police (HoPF) to form the SIT under DIG Salem Range Santhosh Hadimani. It also allowed the DI”
- http://youtube.com/post/UgkxX2PXvfGvjbz8D281S4RKk21qRIMPDtF8?si=iIQh9uMq_VOTnffQ Madras High Court Upholds GST Proceedings Over Mismatch Between Seigniorage Fees and Reported Turnover
- MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD)Nos.24097, 24098, 24099, 24101, 24102, 24103 and 24104 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20380 and 20381 of 2024 W.P.(MD)Nos.24097 to 24099 of 2024:- M/s.Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited, Represented by its Deputy General Manager – Purchase, Shri.P.Jegatheesan, Sukkiravarpatti, Sivakasi – 626 130. … Petitioner in
- Madras HC’s Order In The Case of M/s.Andromeda Sales and Distribution Pvt Ltd vs The State Tax Officer The Madras High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal contesting a GST (Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order, noting that the taxpayer’s conduct expresses an attempt to evade or defer payment of tax. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala declined to condone a 15-day delay in filing the appeal and stated that the belated challenge appears to be an effort to evade or postpone tax liability.
More
Recent Posts
- Justice L Victoria Gowri made the observations while allowing a petition filed by K Surya, a final-year B Tech student, who had accused Valliyoor all-women police station of harassing and compelling him to live with the woman. The woman told the court she became pregnant during a consensual relationship with the petitioner, who allegedly promised marriage but distanced himself later and refused to continue the relationship”
- Justice B Pugalendhi, who issued the directions while hearing a batch of petitions seeking to transfer the two cases to the CBI, said the motive for placing the cash could be related to fire safety licence scam. The bench directed the Director General of Police (HoPF) to form the SIT under DIG Salem Range Santhosh Hadimani. It also allowed the DI”
- http://youtube.com/post/UgkxX2PXvfGvjbz8D281S4RKk21qRIMPDtF8?si=iIQh9uMq_VOTnffQ Madras High Court Upholds GST Proceedings Over Mismatch Between Seigniorage Fees and Reported Turnover
- MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD)Nos.24097, 24098, 24099, 24101, 24102, 24103 and 24104 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20380 and 20381 of 2024 W.P.(MD)Nos.24097 to 24099 of 2024:- M/s.Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited, Represented by its Deputy General Manager – Purchase, Shri.P.Jegatheesan, Sukkiravarpatti, Sivakasi – 626 130. … Petitioner in
- Madras HC’s Order In The Case of M/s.Andromeda Sales and Distribution Pvt Ltd vs The State Tax Officer The Madras High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal contesting a GST (Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order, noting that the taxpayer’s conduct expresses an attempt to evade or defer payment of tax. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala declined to condone a 15-day delay in filing the appeal and stated that the belated challenge appears to be an effort to evade or postpone tax liability.