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...
The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can pursue an appeal as a victim before the Sessions Court. The matter was transferred in light of the Supreme Courts ruling in Celestium Financial.
The law distinguishes between inquiry under Section 70 and arrest under Section 69, limiting arrest to serious offences. The key takeaway is that coercive practices and misuse of summons are not legally justified.
The issue was whether parents-in-law can claim maintenance from a daughter-in-law. The Court held that the law does not include parents-in-law within eligible categories. The key takeaway is that maintenance rights are strictly limited to statutory provisions.
The Kerala High Court held that freezing a bank account suspected to contain proceeds of crime must follow the attachment procedure under Section 107 of the BNSS. The debit freeze imposed under Section 106 was therefore quashed.
The Court ruled that Section 106 of the BNSS permits seizure of property but not debit freezing of bank accounts. Attachment of proceeds of crime must follow the procedure under Section 107.
The High Court held that Section 94 of the BNSS only allows authorities to call for documents and does not empower police to freeze bank accounts. Since the account was frozen without proper statutory authority, the action was declared illegal.
