Appellate jurisdiction over baggage imports is excluded, requiring confiscation challenges involving passenger-carried gold to proceed by statutory re...
Article 227 review permits intervention in arbitration only for manifest, patent inherent jurisdictional defects, not representational authority dispu...
Violation under FERA - charge u/s. 56 of FERA - Company being in Liquidation - Whether the charge against the Company can be framed through the petitioner? - Petitioner had resigned from the Company in the year 1993, that is, much before the alleged transaction that took place in 1997. - The court concludes that the trial court erred in framing the charge against the company through the petitioner. It orders modification of the impugned order to reflect that the charge against the company should be through the Provisional Liquidator. However, it clarifies that the charges framed against the petitioner in his individual capacity remain unaffected.
Violation under FERA - charge u/s. 56 of FERA - Company being in Liquidation - Whether the charge against the Company can be framed through the petitioner? - Petitioner had resigned from the Company in the year 1993, that is, much before the alleged transaction that took place in 1997. - The court concludes that the trial court erred in framing the charge against the company through the petitioner. It orders modification of the impugned order to reflect that the charge against the company should be through the Provisional Liquidator. However, it clarifies that the charges framed against the petitioner in his individual capacity remain unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
