Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Inadvertent error by bank officials ignoring restraint orders led to FIR against bank officials for offences under IPC provisions. Continuation of criminal proceedings questioned. Held: FIR did not show bank induced anyone fraudulently or dishonestly, lacking mens rea required for offences u/ss 420, 406, 409, 462 IPC. No entrustment of property misappropriated by bank. Sections 206, 217, 201 IPC requiring mens rea not applicable. No common intention or cooperation by bank in alleged offences, hence Sections 34, 37, 120B IPC inapplicable. Case falls under categories exempting quashing per Bhajan Lal case. Continuation would cause undue hardship. High Court order quashed.
Inadvertent error by bank officials ignoring restraint orders led to FIR against bank officials for offences under IPC provisions. Continuation of criminal proceedings questioned. Held: FIR did not show bank induced anyone fraudulently or dishonestly, lacking mens rea required for offences u/ss 420, 406, 409, 462 IPC. No entrustment of property misappropriated by bank. Sections 206, 217, 201 IPC requiring mens rea not applicable. No common intention or cooperation by bank in alleged offences, hence Sections 34, 37, 120B IPC inapplicable. Case falls under categories exempting quashing per Bhajan Lal case. Continuation would cause undue hardship. High Court order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.