Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
In an economic-offence investigation, the HC treated a seven-day prior notice requirement before coercive action as a limited safeguard, not anticipatory bail or blanket protection from arrest. Because the matter was still at the summons stage and no proposal for prior approval to arrest had been moved, the Court held that investigation could continue and the respondents had to join as called. The Department remained free to proceed in accordance with law if they did not cooperate. The challenge to the notice direction failed and the petitions were dismissed.
In an economic-offence investigation, the HC treated a seven-day prior notice requirement before coercive action as a limited safeguard, not anticipatory bail or blanket protection from arrest. Because the matter was still at the summons stage and no proposal for prior approval to arrest had been moved, the Court held that investigation could continue and the respondents had to join as called. The Department remained free to proceed in accordance with law if they did not cooperate. The challenge to the notice direction failed and the petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.