Goods and Services Tax : The law distinguishes between inquiry under Section 70 and arrest under Section 69, limiting arrest to serious offences. The key t...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC upheld FIR registration under IPC for a pre-1 July 2024 offence, clarified BNSS investigation procedure, and disposed...
Corporate Law : SC enhanced maintenance to ₹25,000 per month under Section 144 BNSS, holding loan repayments should not substantially reduce mai...
Custom Duty : Orissa HC upheld seizure under Sections 96 and 185 BNSS, declined interference and directed petitioners to seek release under Sect...
Corporate Law : SC set aside the PMLA cognizance order as the accused was not heard under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS before cognizan...
Company Law : Companies and individuals prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013 were not entit...
Allahabad HC upheld FIR registration under IPC for a pre-1 July 2024 offence, clarified BNSS investigation procedure, and disposed of the writ petition.
SC enhanced maintenance to ₹25,000 per month under Section 144 BNSS, holding loan repayments should not substantially reduce maintenance liability.
Orissa HC upheld seizure under Sections 96 and 185 BNSS, declined interference and directed petitioners to seek release under Section 497 BNSS.
SC set aside the PMLA cognizance order as the accused was not heard under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS before cognizance.
Companies and individuals prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013 were not entitled to a pre-cognizance hearing under the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Allahabad HC quashed Section 316(5) BNS proceedings, holding the allegations fell under the GST Act and the BNS provision was applied to a 2017-18 occurrence.
Allahabad HC ruled that cyber crime investigations must comply with BNSS requirements, including furnishing the FIR and specifying the lien amount.
Calcutta HC set aside a property attachment under Section 107 BNSS for non-compliance with notice requirements and lack of recorded reason to believe.
Calcutta HC held that criminal proceedings cannot be used to recover civil dues after failed IBC proceedings where essential criminal ingredients are absent.
Calcutta HC held that attachment under Section 107 BNSS requires objective “reason to believe,” not suspicion or assumption, while permitting a fresh application.
