Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court upheld the order quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the Regional Director (NR) of ROC, emphasizing the distinction between executive and quasi-judicial functions under the Act. The court held that an authority's act can be quasi-judicial even without two competing parties, considering factors like nature of rights affected. Referring to relevant case law, the court highlighted the need for objective criteria and consideration of objections for a function to be quasi-judicial. The court noted the elaborate procedure under Rule 30 for shifting applications, requiring examination of objections and reports from RoCs. Despite allegations of misconduct, the court found no fault in the respondent's approval of shifting applications, given reliance on information provided and lack of alerts about pending inspections. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the respondent's heavy workload and lack of evidence against other officers involved.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the Regional Director (NR) of ROC, emphasizing the distinction between executive and quasi-judicial functions under the Act. The court held that an authority's act can be quasi-judicial even without two competing parties, considering factors like nature of rights affected. Referring to relevant case law, the court highlighted the need for objective criteria and consideration of objections for a function to be quasi-judicial. The court noted the elaborate procedure under Rule 30 for shifting applications, requiring examination of objections and reports from RoCs. Despite allegations of misconduct, the court found no fault in the respondent's approval of shifting applications, given reliance on information provided and lack of alerts about pending inspections. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the respondent's heavy workload and lack of evidence against other officers involved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
