Delhi HC allows Sanjay Jain to challenge property attachment. Get insights into the PMLA Appellate Tribunal process. Eviction notices discussed.
Dr. U.S. Awasthi Vs Adjudicating Authority Pmla & Anr. (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner’s contention is that in terms of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005, only orders under Section 13(2) and Section 8 of PMLA are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. As per the Petitioner, an order passed in an application seeking cross-examination […]
Ramesh Jethi Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Delhi High Court) 1. This petition is filed with the following prayers:- (a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the officers working under the charge and subordinate to learned Respondent to permit presence of Petitioner’s counsel while interrogating in conformity with the law propounded by the Hon’ble […]
Petitioner’s intended to take benefit of MEIS scheme. Thus, error of not marking ‘Y’ against reward column is clearly an inadvertent error.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Instructions issued by Revenue Department needs to be aligned with the decisions taken by the courts and the position of law as declared by the judgments The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors [Review […]
Delhi High Court ruled that the import or release of goods in favor of a petitioner without the transfer of ownership is not allowed under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner is liable to pay 50% of the detention/demurrage charges.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Conciliation Officer is not an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court and does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and/or does not adjudicate the claims of /disputes between the parties.
A perusal of the instruction would show that PAN – AAACK4O32H concerns an entity going by the name K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. This PAN does not concern M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner’s stand that it had not entered into any transaction with M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. is correct. Given this position, in our view, both the notice which is issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act and the order that was passed under Section 148 A (d) of the Act suffer from obvious errors.
HC held that There is no absolute bar against a lawsuit or legal proceedings continuing concurrently with liquidation proceedings under Section 33(5) of IBC (Liquidation Moratorium), unlike Section 14 of IBC (CIRP Moratorium).
Delhi High Court held that compensation received from Government of Goa on cancellation of plot is capital receipt and hence not taxable.
