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...
The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, holding that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose because the respondent-bank had produced no governing OTS policy or consistent express promise; consequently the court would not compel disclosure of an alleged changing benchmark or direct acceptance of the petitioner's OTS. While noting that a bank may qualify as a "State" under Article 12 and that discriminatory deviations from RBI guidelines could implicate Article 14, the court found no demonstrable policy breach here and deferred to the respondent-bank's commercial wisdom to assess recoverability and OTS suitability. Relief sought to mandate disclosure and dictate settlement terms was therefore refused.
The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, holding that no enforceable legitimate expectation arose because the respondent-bank had produced no governing OTS policy or consistent express promise; consequently the court would not compel disclosure of an alleged changing benchmark or direct acceptance of the petitioner's OTS. While noting that a bank may qualify as a "State" under Article 12 and that discriminatory deviations from RBI guidelines could implicate Article 14, the court found no demonstrable policy breach here and deferred to the respondent-bank's commercial wisdom to assess recoverability and OTS suitability. Relief sought to mandate disclosure and dictate settlement terms was therefore refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
