Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2020 (6) TMI 261 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Bail in serious economic fraud depends on court discretion, material on record, and trial risk, not mere non-arrest. Appearance before court and non-arrest during investigation do not create an automatic right to bail; the court retains independent discretion under the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Bail in serious economic fraud depends on court discretion, material on record, and trial risk, not mere non-arrest.

                          Appearance before court and non-arrest during investigation do not create an automatic right to bail; the court retains independent discretion under the applicable bail provisions. The twin conditions in section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 were not treated as an absolute mandatory bar, as they cannot be applied as an inflexible threshold overriding bail discretion. On the material collected in a serious economic fraud investigation, including the alleged transaction pattern, absence of supporting records, and the risk of interference with evidence or witnesses, bail was refused on merits.




                          Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because he had joined investigation and was not arrested during investigation. (ii) Whether the twin conditions in section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 barred or controlled consideration of bail. (iii) Whether the material on record justified denial of bail having regard to the nature of the alleged economic offence and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

                          Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because he had joined investigation and was not arrested during investigation.

                          Analysis: The provisions governing appearance before court and the provisions governing bail operate in different fields. Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 concerns securing appearance and does not create an automatic right to bail. The fact that the investigating officer did not arrest the petitioner during investigation does not curtail the court's independent discretion while considering bail under the provisions applicable to accused persons produced or appearing before the court.

                          Conclusion: The petitioner had no automatic right to bail on the basis of his appearance before court or non-arrest during investigation.

                          Issue (ii): Whether the twin conditions in section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 barred or controlled consideration of bail.

                          Analysis: The bail restriction under section 212(6) was considered against the backdrop of its apparent conflict with settled criminal procedure and constitutional guarantees. The court held that the provision, read as mandating a finding of non-guilt at the threshold of trial, creates an impossible standard and cannot be applied as an inflexible bar overriding the court's discretion. The court therefore declined to treat the twin conditions as mandatory in the manner urged by the prosecution.

                          Conclusion: The twin conditions were not treated as an absolute mandatory bar to bail.

                          Issue (iii): Whether the material on record justified denial of bail having regard to the nature of the alleged economic offence and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

                          Analysis: The alleged offence was treated as a serious economic offence involving a large-scale fraudulent routing of funds and suspicious financial entries. The court relied on the material collected during investigation, including the petitioner's statements, the alleged lack of supporting books and records, and the surrounding transaction pattern. In such offences, the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and the apprehension of interference with the trial are relevant bail factors. On that material, the court found sufficient grounds to decline bail.

                          Conclusion: Bail was refused on merits because the allegations and material on record were sufficient to justify continued custody.

                          Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the court found no entitlement to bail either as a matter of right or on merits, and treated the alleged conduct as sufficiently grave to warrant refusal of bail.

                          Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters arising from serious economic fraud, appearance before court or non-arrest during investigation does not create an automatic right to bail, and the court must independently assess the material, the gravity of the offence, and the risk to the trial.


                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found