Query Data Bank

Commercial Tax / Law

Company Law

Consumer Law

Cooperative Societies

Direct Tax



Goods & Service Tax (GST)

House Tax


Industrial Policies/Rules & Regulations

Intellectual Property Rights

Labour Law


Pollution Control

Service Tax, Excise and Custom

1 to 25 of 37 Queries

« Previous   Next »  

Query Id is 103
We are planning to enter into an arrangement with various organisations wherein they can advertise their products through our stores for sales promotion and branding. In this arrangement, they can even provide free samples to our customers but there will not be a sale of these products through our stores. In light of the above, we have certain queries on the publicity of liquor and tobacco products as under. Kindly advice on the same. 1) Can we advertise for liquor and tobacco products inside our stores? 2)If yes, then what are the legal formalities we need to comply with? 3)One of our clients is holding a liquor licence and wants to advertise his liquor and tobacco products from our stores and also wants to provide free samples to our customers. Kindly advice about the compliances to be done for the same? 4) Is there any ban on publicity of liquor and tobacco products? Can liquor and tobacco companies do surrogate advertising at our stores. If yes what are the terms and conditions to do it? (15.12.2005)

Query Id is 98
The querist is a stock broker. The querist operates in India and caters to international Institutional investors. These international investors are based abroad. The international investors call into the dealing room of the querist using International Dialling Facility (IDD) from their home countries. The cost of making the call is charged to the investor. The querist wishes to offer to its international investors a "Toll Free" calling facility. In this facility the international investor can call the querist's office on a designated number and cost of the call will be borne by the querist and not the investor. Presently international "Toll Free" calling facility is not offered by any telecom service provider in India. Hence the querist has to use the services of an overseas telecom service provider. The payment to the overseas telecom service provider has to be made in foreign currency. Remittance for the same has to be routed through a Authorised Dealer of foreign exchange. The querist seeks your advice on :

Query Id is 95
This is regarding the mouth freshener-Use of permitted synthetic food colour. Rule 29 of PFA Rules enumerated the goods where the permitted synthetic food colours can be used.Please peruse the Bombiyya, pass pass , freshwala and chill out mouth freshener.Everyone uses synthetic food colour in the products. That is the common industry practice.You may kindly see 1985 (91) Criminal Law journal in the Municipal corporation of Delhi vs Jawala Parshad and other. The Delhi High Court held that Sweet channa can contain permitted synthetic food colours. Can we take the same route and say chill out , pass pass, bombaiyya are sweet and are not specifically prohibited by PFA to have synthetic food colours. As the same is actually seized for misbranding can we move the High Court for a remedy ? (30.9.2005)

Query Id is 92
1. Between 1996 and 2001, Mr. A advanced various sums of money aggregating to Rs. 16,00,000/- to his relative, Mr. B, for use in the latter’s business. 2. The said loan was given by way of 15 crossed cheques. Of the 15 cheques, 10 cheques aggregating to Rs. 5,00,000/- were given between 1996 and 1999. The rest were given between 2000 and 2001. 3. It was agreed between the parties that B would pay interest @ 21% p.a. to Mr. A on a monthly basis. 4. Upto 2002, Mr. B regularly paid interest to Mr. A in cash and had also made a cheque payment of Rs. 75,000/-. In 2002, Mr. B made two cheque payments for interest amounting to Rs. 54,000 and Rs. 50,000 to Mr. A. No payments were made by Mr. B thereafter. 5. A started following up with Mr. B and the latter kept assuring the former that he would soon regularize the account. At no point of time did Mr. A ask Mr. B to return the principal amount. 6. In February 2003, it was agreed between the parties that Mr. B would pay an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to Mr. A in full and final settlement of the total amount due from Mr. B to Mr. A. Accordingly Mr. B handed over a cheque for Rs. 15,00,000/- to Mr. A. 7. No written correspondence were exchanged between the parties in respect of their financial dealings as set out above. The only written records are the concerned cheques paid by Mr. A to Mr. B and vice-versa. 8. The cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/- was duly deposited by Mr. A but was dishonoured. Eventually a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in July 2003. 9. Mr. A was advised that the loan of Rs. 16,00,000/-, to the extent it related to cheques issued between 1996 and 1999 i.e. to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- had become time-barred and therefore the enforceable debt due from Mr. B to Mr. A was only to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/-. Accordingly it would be difficult to justify a payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 10. Consequently it was contended by Mr. A in the aforesaid complaint that the cheque amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was in respect of the cheques issued between 2000 and 2001 and the interest thereon @ 21%. 11. It was eventually held that Mr. A proved that he had paid an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- to Mr. B but failed to prove that there was any agreement to pay any interest. Accordingly the cheque pertained to repayment of the principal amount. However Rs. 5,00,000/- comprised in the aggregate loan of Rs. 16,00,000/- had become time barred and hence the legally enforceable debt was only Rs. 11,00,000/-. Thus on the day the cheque was issued, there was no debt or liability to the extent of Rs. 15,00,000/- owing from Mr. B to Mr. A. Thus Mr. B had rebutted the presumption that the cheque was in discharge of any debt or liability. In these premises the complaint was dismissed. Mr. A is now desirous of filing an appeal and seeks the opinion of the Pundits on the following points: A. Can it be contended that a loan does not become due for repayment immediately upon it being advanced and therefore the debt does not become time barred, as a matter of course, on the expiry of three years from the day on which the loan is advanced? Can it be contended that time starts running only from the day it becomes due? B. In the facts of the present case can it be contended that there is nothing to show as to when the debt became due and therefore and in any event, it cannot be readily presumed that it became due for repayment the moment it was given and consequently time-barred on the expiry of three years therefrom? C. Can it therefore be contended that the Limitation Act has no application in the present case and that therefore it cannot aid Mr. B in rebutting the presumption under Section 139? D. Can it be contented that the Limitation Act extinguishes the remedy and not the right and that a time-barred debt in any event remains a debt albeit without a remedy? If so, can it then be contended that the words “debt or other liability” used in Sections 138 and 139 do not exclude such time barred debts? In other words, can it be contended that, even if a cheque is issued to repay a time barred debt, it would be said to be issued in discharge of a “debt or other liability” within the meaning of the terms as used in the said Sections? E. Can it be contended that a cheque issued in discharge of a time barred debt itself amounted to a contract of the nature referred to in Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act? If so, can it be contended on that ground as well that even if a cheque is issued to repay a time barred debt, it would be said to be issued in discharge of a “debt or other liability” within the meaning of the terms as used in the said Sections? F. If the answer to D and E is in the affirmative, can it be said that even if the Limitation Act was to be applicable to the Rs. 5,00,000/- debt component in the present case, it would not aid Mr. B in rebutting the presumption under Section 139? G. Would the appeal from the order of a Magistrate dismissing a complaint lie in the High Court under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code? (7.7.2005)

Post Query
If you cannot find answers related to your question. Kindly feel free to post your query with us through the form below.
All the fields marked with '*' are mandatory.
All the replied will be sent only via Email on the Email Id provided in the query form.

Category *


Full Name *


Email Id *


Full Contact Address
with Phone/Fax


Your Question *

Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Link To Us