Supreme Court held that a detenu has no right of being represented by the counsel in the proceedings before the Advisory Board. Accordingly, detention order of detenu indulged in gold smuggling activities upheld as satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is a subjective one.
The SC reinstated the original stay on CERA audit, holding that the High Court had no sufficient reason to alter long-standing interim relief. It directed expeditious disposal of the writ petitions while continuing protection.
Supreme Court held that preventive detention of detenu under COFEPOSA Act involved in gold smuggling syndicate upheld since detaining authority derived valid subjective satisfaction.
The issue was whether a writ petition for FIR quashing becomes infructuous after filing of a chargesheet. The Court held it does not, where broader jurisdiction under BNSS is invoked.
Supreme Court held that initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against air force pilot not justifiable since criminal court already discharged the officer on the same charges. Also held that discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal.
Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘deficiency in service’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, compensation entitled to be awarded to the consumer.
The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act does not allow an amalgamated company to claim losses of the amalgamating entity. Section 12 permits set-off only by the same assessee who incurred the loss.
The issue was whether a composite assessment becomes wholly invalid. The Court held that valid and invalid portions can be separated and enforced accordingly.
**SEO Description:** Supreme Court holds that an appeal filed by a suspended director in the name of the corporate debtor after admission of CIRP is not maintainable. It rules that such a fundamentally incompetent appeal cannot be cured or converted after expiry of limitation under Section 61(2) of the IBC, and sets aside NCLAT’s contrary approach.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order condoning delay in filing Form 10B. It upheld that a genuine explanation and completed compliance justified relief.
