Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96091 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
