Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the scope of judicial review u/s 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the Central Government's sanction for an investigation by the SFIO. The court held that SFIO investigation on transactions already addressed u/s 66 of the IBC would amount to double jeopardy. It emphasized the necessity of public interest for such investigations and found no such element in this case. The court noted that the company's functions were halted due to CIRP and pending liquidation, indicating no public interest or prima facie case for the investigation. The court ruled the sanction as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking a reasoned order, thus setting it aside and quashing any actions taken based on it.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the scope of judicial review u/s 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding the Central Government's sanction for an investigation by the SFIO. The court held that SFIO investigation on transactions already addressed u/s 66 of the IBC would amount to double jeopardy. It emphasized the necessity of public interest for such investigations and found no such element in this case. The court noted that the company's functions were halted due to CIRP and pending liquidation, indicating no public interest or prima facie case for the investigation. The court ruled the sanction as arbitrary, illegal, and lacking a reasoned order, thus setting it aside and quashing any actions taken based on it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
