Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC set aside both the original bail order and subsequent modification order due to the petitioner's contradictory conduct regarding a Rs. 50,00,000 deposit condition. The petitioner initially offered the monetary deposit through counsel, secured bail modification allowing payment post-release, then repudiated the offer claiming counsel lacked authority and the condition was onerous. The Court held that while excessive bail constitutes no bail and onerous conditions should be avoided, parties cannot "approbate and reprobate" or manipulate judicial proceedings. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Despite the petitioner's conduct warranting re-incarceration, limited interim protection from surrender was granted. The Chief Justice of Madras HC was directed to place the matter before appropriate court by 30.06.2025. SLP disposed.
The SC set aside both the original bail order and subsequent modification order due to the petitioner's contradictory conduct regarding a Rs. 50,00,000 deposit condition. The petitioner initially offered the monetary deposit through counsel, secured bail modification allowing payment post-release, then repudiated the offer claiming counsel lacked authority and the condition was onerous. The Court held that while excessive bail constitutes no bail and onerous conditions should be avoided, parties cannot "approbate and reprobate" or manipulate judicial proceedings. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. Despite the petitioner's conduct warranting re-incarceration, limited interim protection from surrender was granted. The Chief Justice of Madras HC was directed to place the matter before appropriate court by 30.06.2025. SLP disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
