Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
