Personal guarantor insolvency jurisdiction follows the corporate debtor's CIRP Bench, enabling inter-territorial transfer and preventing parallel proc...
Section 47-A undervaluation threshold: fraudulent intent requirement faces reconsideration after referral to a larger Bench for authoritative resoluti...
RBI supersession powers over multi-State co-operative banks operate independently of the constitutional six-month ceiling and permit statutory extensi...
FERA penalty quantification must be reasoned, reasonable and proportionate to the contravention; the statutory maximum under Section 50 does not by itself justify the amount imposed. Where certain export-realisation contraventions were excluded and an RBI write-off was noted, retaining the original penalty without explaining its basis was disproportionate. A finding that the penalty was not harsh or excessive, without articulated quantification reasons, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore set aside and redetermined at a lower amount, with the appeal partly allowed.
FERA penalty quantification must be reasoned, reasonable and proportionate to the contravention; the statutory maximum under Section 50 does not by itself justify the amount imposed. Where certain export-realisation contraventions were excluded and an RBI write-off was noted, retaining the original penalty without explaining its basis was disproportionate. A finding that the penalty was not harsh or excessive, without articulated quantification reasons, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore set aside and redetermined at a lower amount, with the appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4927 
