The court restrained dissemination of defamatory content related to a film before its release. It held that a prima facie case and irreparable harm justified urgent interim protection.
The Tribunal quashed the attachment after verification showed only four items matched the alleged seller and no material established benami holding. The provisional attachment under PBPTA was held unsustainable.
SAFEMA Delhi held that non-tribal individual used tribal employee to Benami purchase land. Thus, the sale is violative of section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is absolutely barred under the law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to overseas agents formed part of the true FOB export value and was not properly declared, violating Section 7 of FEMA. However, penalties were substantially reduced after considering the overall facts.
The Tribunal sustained attachment of Rs. 1 crore under the Benami law but remanded the case for further investigation, citing insufficient proof to prosecute.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding that bank records, agreements, and admissions established benami elements. Procedural objections were held insufficient to override substantive findings.
The issue was whether payments received by private firms were genuine business income or tainted funds. The Tribunal held that advance payments and manipulated tendering showed diversion of NRHM money, justifying attachment.
The case examined whether properties mortgaged with banks could be released from attachment. The Tribunal ruled that repayment of loans using illicit funds justified attachment to preserve assets for confiscation.
The issue was whether statements and digital records from Customs probes could support FEMA action. The Tribunal ruled they are admissible and sufficient to establish illegal foreign exchange payments.
The case examined whether penalty quantum should reflect the appellant’s role in the transaction. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after noting the dominant involvement of a third party and lack of comprehensive investigation.
