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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This case pertains to a writ petition filed by a company invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to initiate action against Exclusive Capital Limited under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934. The Court held that a writ of mandamus lies when statutory authorities fail to exercise their powers, leading to irreparable harm to statutory rights. Despite repeated reminders, Exclusive Capital Limited's management failed to provide organizational details, statutory compliance records, personnel particulars, and financial statements, indicating mismanagement. The company's reply denied RBI's concerns and claimed the conversion of OCDs into CCPS was to restore leverage ratio, and that RBI regulations were inapplicable. The Court distinguished the Krishnakrupa case, where the High Court refused to interfere in RBI's banking affairs. Finding ample material warranting an inquiry into Exclusive Capital Limited's affairs and RBI's failure to exercise supervisory powers, the Court directed the suspension of the company's Board of Directors until further orders and compliance reporting on 02.12.2024.
This case pertains to a writ petition filed by a company invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to initiate action against Exclusive Capital Limited under Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934. The Court held that a writ of mandamus lies when statutory authorities fail to exercise their powers, leading to irreparable harm to statutory rights. Despite repeated reminders, Exclusive Capital Limited's management failed to provide organizational details, statutory compliance records, personnel particulars, and financial statements, indicating mismanagement. The company's reply denied RBI's concerns and claimed the conversion of OCDs into CCPS was to restore leverage ratio, and that RBI regulations were inapplicable. The Court distinguished the Krishnakrupa case, where the High Court refused to interfere in RBI's banking affairs. Finding ample material warranting an inquiry into Exclusive Capital Limited's affairs and RBI's failure to exercise supervisory powers, the Court directed the suspension of the company's Board of Directors until further orders and compliance reporting on 02.12.2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
