c

Finance judiciary-2

In appropriate cases Pre-deposit of 50% of decretal amount before DRAT can be reduced

Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited Vs Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors (Supreme Court India)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited Vs Ambuj A. Kasliwal & Ors (Supreme Court) The extracted portion indicates that the High Court has proceeded at a tangent while adverting to the aspect of recovery made towards the loan amount from the land acquisition compensation payable to respondent No.3. The conclusion appears to be that the recei...

Read More

HC set aside Criminal Case related to setting up of Bitcoin ATM

B V Harish Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High  Court)

B V Harish Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High  Court) In this case Karnataka High Court quashed and set aside a criminal case registered against founders of Bitcoin company, Unocoin for setting up a Bitcoin ATM in Bengaluru in 2018 as  the case has been registered against the petitioners based on the Circular dated 06.04.2018 [&helli...

Read More

HC refuses anticipatory Bail in ‘Bitcoin’ Fraud Case

Rupesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

If it is proved by the applicant accused that his health condition is not good then I do not intend to arrest the applicant accused subject to his cooperation in investigation on following points - i)  If the applicant accused is ready to share all the credential of crypto wallet and relevant information. ii)  If the applicant acc...

Read More

Mere Possession or Recovery of Currency Notes Not Sufficient to prove Gratification

N. Vijayakumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court)

Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved....

Read More

Mortgage of secured creditor gets prior charge over charge for tax/VAT dues

State Bank of India Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

State Bank of India Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In our considered view the facts in the case at hand being similar to the facts in the case of ASREC (India) Limited (Supra) that decision would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case that if any Central statute creates priority of […]...

Read More

Private financial institutions performing public duties cannot be treated as ‘State’

Kailashi Devi Vs Branch Manager And Another (Allahabad High Court)

Kailashi Devi Vs Branch Manager And Another (Allahabad High Court) Private financial institutions, carrying of business or commercial activity, may be performing public duties, but cannot be considered to be covered under the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition against such en...

Read More

In absence of order by Adjudicating Authority within 180 days, Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA ceases to have effect

Vikas WSP Ltd. & Ors. Vs Directorate Enforcement & Anr. (Delhi High Court)

Vikas WSP Ltd. & Ors. Vs Directorate Enforcement & Anr. (Delhi High Court) Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (ACT) empowers the Director or any other officer not below the rank of the Deputy Director authorized by the Director of Enforcement in this regard, to pass an order […]...

Read More

A Trainee Cannot Excluded from Definition of Term ‘Employee’ under Gratuity Act

Irel (India) Limited Vs P. N. Raghava Panicker (Kerala High Court)

The issue under consideration is whether a trainee is excluded from the definition of the term 'employee' under the Gratuity Act? A trainee is not excluded from the definition of the term 'employee' under the Gratuity Act. What is excluded is an 'apprentice'....

Read More

HC denies Bail to MD of IL&FS Transportation in alleged Money Laundering case

Ramchand Karunakaran. Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Bombay High Court)

Ramchan Krunakaran Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Bombay High Court) In Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India,  2018(11) SCC 1, the Apex Court has reiterated the principle concerning grant of bail being the rule and refusal being exception and while dealing with Section 45 of the PMLA Act which imposes twin stringent condition for off...

Read More

Wind up of six Mutual Fund Schemes by Fanklin should be with consent of unit-holders: HC

SEBI Vs Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court)

SEBI Vs Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka High Court) i) We hold that no interference is called for in the decision of the Trustees taken on 23rd April 2020 of winding up the said six Schemes; ii) We hold and declare that the decision of the Trustees (the Franklin Templeton Trustee Services private […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,866)
Company Law (7,971)
Custom Duty (8,936)
DGFT (4,693)
Excise Duty (4,590)
Fema / RBI (4,939)
Finance (5,344)
Income Tax (39,451)
SEBI (4,284)
Service Tax (3,846)

Search Posts by Date

January 2022
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31