The Court examined whether an owner could be blamed when a stolen vehicle was misused for illegal liquor transport. It ruled that provisional release was justified after ownership verification and furnishing of sureties, despite confiscation liability.
Income Tax Department was directed to encash the Demand Draft, confirm the sale, and issue the Sale Certificate in favour of the highest bidder, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s rights.
Contempt Petition was not maintainable, as the NCLT had independent and effective jurisdiction under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 to punish for contempt of its own orders, including those passed under the IBC.
Bombay High Court held that revisionary order which set aside eviction order is not sustainable in law. Court also held that using AI tool as aid for filing submission without verifying its content is not acceptable.
The Court examined whether the Rajasthan ACB could investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees without CBI approval. It held that the ACB has concurrent jurisdiction under the PC Act and such investigations are valid in law.
The court affirmed disciplinary action where an auditor failed to detect ever-greening of assets and misreporting in audit accounts. The ruling confirms that serious audit lapses justify temporary removal from professional rolls.
The court held that arrest during a GST investigation was unlawful as mandatory safeguards under the BNSS were not followed. Failure to record reasons for arrest rendered the action invalid.
The court examined whether a liquidation recovery application was time-barred. It held that statutory limitation under company law cannot be extended by judicial interpretation.
The issue was whether the income-tax e-filing utility could prevent an assessee from making a lawful set-off claim. The High Court held that procedural software cannot override statutory rights and directed that such claims must be allowed.
The Court examined rejection of a liquidation claim for non-filing of originals. It held that the claimant should be given time to submit documents before final consideration.
