Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The Supreme Court stated that the availability of revision under Section 397 CrPC does not bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where abuse of process or the ends of justice warrant intervention; a petition may be treated under the appropriate provision rather than rejected on nomenclature. Service of a meaningful opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) FERA is mandatory before a complaint may be instituted, and cognizance without proof of service is unsustainable. The Court also applied the Article 21 speedy-trial balancing assessment, finding prolonged, unexplained complainant-caused inaction. It set aside the High Court order and quashed the complaints and summoning order.
The Supreme Court stated that the availability of revision under Section 397 CrPC does not bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where abuse of process or the ends of justice warrant intervention; a petition may be treated under the appropriate provision rather than rejected on nomenclature. Service of a meaningful opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) FERA is mandatory before a complaint may be instituted, and cognizance without proof of service is unsustainable. The Court also applied the Article 21 speedy-trial balancing assessment, finding prolonged, unexplained complainant-caused inaction. It set aside the High Court order and quashed the complaints and summoning order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
