The High Court held that further custodial detention was unnecessary where the complaint had already been filed and investigation against the petitioners had substantially concluded. Bail was granted subject to conditions against influencing witnesses.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail after noting that none of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined despite the accused being in custody since May 2025. The Court held that prolonged incarceration pending trial was not justified.
Court reiterated that gravity of economic offences alone is insufficient to deny bail in every case. It emphasized that bail remains the rule unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail in multiple GST and VAT-related economic offence cases after noting that investigation and filing of challans were already complete. The Court held that prolonged custody after completion of investigation was not justified.
The High Court granted regular bail in a GST tax evasion case after noting that the evidence was primarily documentary and the complaint had already been filed. The Court also imposed strict conditions to prevent witness influence.
Pune ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to fully verify expenditure claims unsupported by vouchers. The Tribunal held that random verification was insufficient where substantial cash expenses were claimed.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the arbitration challenge for adjudication on merits.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 challenge petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the challenge petition for adjudication on merits.
The CCI found that the investigation largely relied on comparisons with diagnostic labs and hotels rather than comparable super-specialty hospitals. The Commission ruled that such analysis was insufficient to prove exploitative pricing.
Commission found that patients undergoing elective treatment generally receive estimated treatment costs in advance and retain the ability to choose alternative hospitals. It therefore declined to treat in-patient services as a separate aftermarket under competition law.
