Provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires exhaustion of statutory remedies; impugned order set aside, appeal to tribuna...
Restoration of property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act after attachment dispute rendered academic; possession directed to successful resolut...
Goods Transport Agency services via e commerce portals: consignment note creates custody and liability and enables exemption for unregistered recipien...
Reverse charge and assignment of royalty collection: exemption for excess royalty collectors subject to reconciliation; leaseholders remain liable und...
The dominant issue was whether the petitioner could be treated as a "promoter" or otherwise brought within Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (01.07.2015) to sustain a wilful defaulter classification. The Court held there was no admission or documentary material showing the petitioner was a promoter, and the record (including the company prospectus) did not support such status; the matter had to be assessed on the footing that he was only a non-executive director. It further held that mere non-whole-time directorship did not satisfy Clause 3(d) and the bank failed to substantiate any complicity or the exception clause requirements. Consequently, the Review Committee's decision was set aside against the petitioner, the identification decision became ineffective, and the bank was directed to remove his name from the wilful defaulter list and reverse consequential steps within one month - HC
The dominant issue was whether the petitioner could be treated as a "promoter" or otherwise brought within Clause 3(d) of the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters (01.07.2015) to sustain a wilful defaulter classification. The Court held there was no admission or documentary material showing the petitioner was a promoter, and the record (including the company prospectus) did not support such status; the matter had to be assessed on the footing that he was only a non-executive director. It further held that mere non-whole-time directorship did not satisfy Clause 3(d) and the bank failed to substantiate any complicity or the exception clause requirements. Consequently, the Review Committee's decision was set aside against the petitioner, the identification decision became ineffective, and the bank was directed to remove his name from the wilful defaulter list and reverse consequential steps within one month - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
