Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Locus standi of the appellant to prefer the appeal, the applicability of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and the correctness of the High Court's order for de novo proceedings against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant has locus standi as the case involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes. It ruled that the proceedings were not hit by the bar u/s 195(1)(b) CrPC as the initiation arose from a court order and not a private complaint. Regarding de novo proceedings, the Court stated that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings and ordering a fresh trial, as the alleged forgery of evidence leading to acquittal warranted further investigation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Locus standi of the appellant to prefer the appeal, the applicability of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and the correctness of the High Court's order for de novo proceedings against the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant has locus standi as the case involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes. It ruled that the proceedings were not hit by the bar u/s 195(1)(b) CrPC as the initiation arose from a court order and not a private complaint. Regarding de novo proceedings, the Court stated that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings and ordering a fresh trial, as the alleged forgery of evidence leading to acquittal warranted further investigation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
