Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 bars any court from staying proceedings under the Act, including in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 19(3)(c) contains an express prohibition that, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no court shall stay proceedings under the Act on any ground other than the limited sanction-related ground specified in the provision. The language is comprehensive and is not confined to revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to override an express statutory bar enacted by Parliament. The provision was enacted to expedite corruption trials and prevent delay through stay orders.
Conclusion: The bar against stay of proceedings under Section 19(3)(c) applies fully, and the High Court cannot grant stay of trial by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Conclusion: The legal position on stay of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was affirmed, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An express statutory prohibition on staying proceedings under a special enactment prevails over the inherent powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.