Explore the legal aspects of information disclosure under RTI Act in Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs CIC. Court emphasizes the burden on public authorities to justify non-disclosure.
Mukul Mittal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Delhi High Court) The petitioner has been in custody now for 56 days. The maximum sentence provided for the offence alleged against the petitioner is imprisonment for a period of five years, therefore the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is required to take congnizance on the complaint is […]
The present petition inter-alia seeks quashing of the impugned Letters dated 31st December, 2020 whereby Respondents have directed the Bankers of the Petitioner Company to Freeze and/or Provisionally attach the bank accounts of the Petitioner Company
Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs Central Information Commission (Delhi High Court) High Court held that i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause; ii) A PIO/CPIO cannot be held responsible if they have genuinely rejected the information sought on valid grounds permissible under the Act. Mere difference of opinion on the part of CIC cannot lead […]
Naresh Dayal & Ors. Vs Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The present suit has been filed by seven plaintiffs who are all members of defendant No.1 Club in a representative capacity claiming that they are the permanent members of defendant No.1 which has 5553 permanent members, about 4925 person enjoy the […]
Assistant Commissioner-V, Sales Tax was acquitted for allegedly demanding Rs.4,000 as illegal gratification after 25 years as there was no recovery from the appellant, presumption U/s 20 regarding acceptance of bribe could not be raised against him and there was neither any demand nor acceptance or recovery from the appellant. Hence, all the ingredients of an offence U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) could not be satisfied. The conviction order was prima facie unlawful as Section 20 was not invoked.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied on the Section 28AAA of the Customs Act to contend that the SCN is not time barred inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and wilful mis-statements in claiming the benefits under the Scheme. Prima facie we find merit in the contention of the respondent.
National Internet Exchange of India Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) On perusal of the record, it emerges that Petitioner has filed TRAN-1 form within the time prescribed by the Respondents under the rules. Petitioner is holding documents evidencing payment of tax by it on such inputs / input services received under […]
In the instant case, the AO had proceeded predominantly on the basis of the analysis of the financials of M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. His conclusion and findings against the Respondent are chiefly on the strength of the astounding 4849.2% jump in share prices of the aforesaid company within a span of two years, which is not supported by the financials.
Ramakrishna Electro Components Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court) We have heard the counsel for the respondents on the aforesaid aspect. The respondents cannot have any claim to further overdraft, if any, availed of by the petitioner in the overdraft account with the SBI. We thus deem it apposite to, […]
