Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent activities in an IPO were challenged. The validity hinged on whether a Single Judge or Division Bench should hear the case after SEBI settlement. The Supreme Court held that since a previous Division Bench had rejected the respondent's contentions, the present matter should have been heard by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. The court refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudicing parties. It set aside the Single Judge's order quashing proceedings post-SEBI settlement and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court's Division Bench for an independent decision on quashing, uninfluenced by previous orders. An interim stay on further proceedings was granted for four weeks, with liberty to seek extension/modification from the Division Bench, which must dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraudulent activities in an IPO were challenged. The validity hinged on whether a Single Judge or Division Bench should hear the case after SEBI settlement. The Supreme Court held that since a previous Division Bench had rejected the respondent's contentions, the present matter should have been heard by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge. The court refrained from commenting on merits to avoid prejudicing parties. It set aside the Single Judge's order quashing proceedings post-SEBI settlement and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court's Division Bench for an independent decision on quashing, uninfluenced by previous orders. An interim stay on further proceedings was granted for four weeks, with liberty to seek extension/modification from the Division Bench, which must dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
