Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
