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...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant was granted bail in the Excise Policy case due to prolonged incarceration and denial of the right to speedy trial, despite the seriousness of the allegations. The Supreme Court observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon, given the voluminous evidence and witnesses involved. Keeping the appellant incarcerated indefinitely would violate their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The court noted the appellant's deep societal roots and imposed conditions like furnishing bail bonds to address concerns about tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The High Court's order denying bail was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
The appellant was granted bail in the Excise Policy case due to prolonged incarceration and denial of the right to speedy trial, despite the seriousness of the allegations. The Supreme Court observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon, given the voluminous evidence and witnesses involved. Keeping the appellant incarcerated indefinitely would violate their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The court noted the appellant's deep societal roots and imposed conditions like furnishing bail bonds to address concerns about tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The High Court's order denying bail was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.