Skip to content
Majesty Legal
  • Home
  • Blog & Articles
  • Practice Area
    • Taxation Law – Direct & Indirect
    • Economic Offences/Anti-Money Laundering Law
    • Corporate, Insolvency, Competition/Anti-trust and Security Law
    • Commercial/Contractual Law & Mining Law
    • Service Law and Labour Law
    • Alternative Dispute Redressal (ADR) – Arbitration, Mediation, and Conciliation
    • Consumer, Insurance and Motor Vehicle Accident Claim (MACT) Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Matrimonial, Family and Inheritance Law
    • Pro Bono and Social Cause
    • Land, Revenue, and Real Estate Law
  • About
  • Contact

Tag: NI Act

  • Home
  • Blog
  • NI Act
NI Act

STRICT INTERPRETATION OF ‘DRAWER’ IN NI ACT EXCLUDES AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES-SC

August 4, 2024majestylegal1881, NI ActLeave a comment

NI Act,1881

Legal Update, NI Act

TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT CAN BE CORRECTED- RAJASTHAN HC

July 1, 2024majestylegallegal update, NI ActLeave a comment

MAHAVEER PRASAD SUMAN V LALIT MOHAN SHARMA

Judgement, Legal Update, NI Act

Invalid Cheque; Merger of banks: Allahabad HC

June 14, 2024majestylegalCheque Bounce, legal update, NI ActLeave a comment

INVALID CHEQUE MERGER OF BANKS

Civil suit, Corporate Case, Criminal Law, Judgement, Legal Update, NI Act

CIVIL COURT PROCEEDINGS ARE BINDING ON CRIMINAL COURTS JURISDICTION ON SAME MATTER OF DISPUTE- SC

April 6, 2024majestylegalcivil court, Criminal law, decree, NI ActLeave a comment

Civil court decree binding on criminal court when matter of dispute is same

Corporate Law, Judgement, NI Act

Merely quoting section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 isn’t enough to hold a director responsible- SC

March 18, 2024majestylegallegal update, NI Act, Section 141, Supreme CourtLeave a comment

Section 141 NI Act, 1881

Recent Posts

  • DECEPTIVE IMITATION: COURT BLOCKS ROGUE WEBSITE FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: Delhi HC
  • SC ASKS CBIC TO RELAX GST TIMELINES FOR BONAFIED ERRORS
  • REFUND CLAIM VALID AS NOTIFICATION CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO DENY ITC- Madras HC
  • GST DEMAND OF FOUR YEARS CONSOLIDATED NOTICE IS IMPERMISSIBLE: Bombay HC
  • Mere intimation of arrest insufficient; grounds must be clearly communicated- Gauhati High Court
EMAIL US majestylegal9@gmail.com,mahi@majestylegal.in
PHONE : +91 9785461395

OFFICE : B-87, UDB Alaknanda Apartment, G-1,Ganesh Marg/Moti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015


CHAMBER : 204, E-Block Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur

© 2021 Majesty Legal All right reserved

Lawyer Zone by Acme Themes

Free Consultation