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...
This case deals with the admissibility of statements made u/s 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the accused is in judicial custody in another case investigated by the same agency. The key points are: The Supreme Court held that when an accused is in custody under PMLA, any statement given to the same investigating agency u/s 50 is inadmissible against the maker, as the person is not operating with a free mind. Such statements would violate the principles of fair play and justice, and the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court distinguished its earlier judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, stating that it had anticipated scenarios where Section 25 of the Evidence Act (confessions to police officers) may apply. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with directions to the trial court. Allegations of misuse of jail facilities were not considered relevant for denying bail.
This case deals with the admissibility of statements made u/s 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the accused is in judicial custody in another case investigated by the same agency. The key points are: The Supreme Court held that when an accused is in custody under PMLA, any statement given to the same investigating agency u/s 50 is inadmissible against the maker, as the person is not operating with a free mind. Such statements would violate the principles of fair play and justice, and the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court distinguished its earlier judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, stating that it had anticipated scenarios where Section 25 of the Evidence Act (confessions to police officers) may apply. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with directions to the trial court. Allegations of misuse of jail facilities were not considered relevant for denying bail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
