Skip to main content

Decide on dud cheque cases in three months, Supreme Court orders magistrates

Magistrate courts across the country should decide on cheque bouncing cases in three months, the Supreme Court has directed.

The SC has also directed magistrates to scrutinize cheque bouncing complaints on the day they are lodged, if the documents attached are in order, and issue summons immediately.

The Indian Banks' Association had moved the SC seeking directions to magistrates to adopt policy and legislative changes for cheque bouncing cases. The banks had alleged that due to the delay in disposing of such cases, they find it difficult to recover the blocked money.

The SC has also observed that summons must be properly addressed and sent by post and email. In appropriate cases, magistrates may take the assistance of police or nearby courts to serve notices. While a short date should be fixed for notice of appearance, if the summons is unserved, immediate follow-up action should be taken, the SC said.

The SC has clarified that in the summons, magistrates may indicate that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing, it may pass appropriate orders at the earliest. Magistrates can also accept affidavits of witnesses, instead of examining them in court.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Decide-on-dud-cheque-cases-in-three-months-Supreme-Court-orders-magistrates/articleshow/34746219.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more