Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4916 
