Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
The court held that mere suspicion against the respondent, a bank official, is not enough to frame charges in a case involving alleged conspiracy and misconduct in sanctioning credit facilities to a company. The proposal went through various committees, including the Loan Advisory Committee, and was approved by higher authorities like the Chief General Manager (Credit) and Executive Director. The respondent's role was limited to signing the memorandum after it was approved by others. The fact that the proposal was processed quickly does not constitute an offense. No material evidence showed any accused other than bank officials met the respondent before sanction. Based on the charge sheet material, the respondent's complicity was not established, and the court dismissed the appeal against the impugned order.
The court held that mere suspicion against the respondent, a bank official, is not enough to frame charges in a case involving alleged conspiracy and misconduct in sanctioning credit facilities to a company. The proposal went through various committees, including the Loan Advisory Committee, and was approved by higher authorities like the Chief General Manager (Credit) and Executive Director. The respondent's role was limited to signing the memorandum after it was approved by others. The fact that the proposal was processed quickly does not constitute an offense. No material evidence showed any accused other than bank officials met the respondent before sanction. Based on the charge sheet material, the respondent's complicity was not established, and the court dismissed the appeal against the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
