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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
HC dismisses petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against anonymized accused arising from IPO-related misconduct, holding that a SEBI consent order and payments of disgorgement/settlement fees do not extinguish or bar prosecution. The court finds allegations disclose prima facie criminality and deliberate intent to obtain unjust enrichment, adversely affecting retail investors and the securities market; such societal and economic offences cannot be neutralized by regulator-set settlements. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Article 227 does not warrant quashing where offences implicate public interest and criminal intent. Accordingly, the consent order and monetary restitution to SEBI do not affect or preclude continuation of prosecutions, and the petitions are dismissed.
HC dismisses petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against anonymized accused arising from IPO-related misconduct, holding that a SEBI consent order and payments of disgorgement/settlement fees do not extinguish or bar prosecution. The court finds allegations disclose prima facie criminality and deliberate intent to obtain unjust enrichment, adversely affecting retail investors and the securities market; such societal and economic offences cannot be neutralized by regulator-set settlements. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Article 227 does not warrant quashing where offences implicate public interest and criminal intent. Accordingly, the consent order and monetary restitution to SEBI do not affect or preclude continuation of prosecutions, and the petitions are dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
