Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Penalty under the law arises as a discretionary sanction and authorities may impose it; however, where a State government organisation lacked malafide intent, faced staffing and procedural difficulties, and ultimately filed the required correction statement rectifying defects, the tribunal found that quasi criminal penalty was inappropriate and granted leniency by setting aside the penalty. The note emphasises that discretion (expressed by 'may') permits relief where procedural obstacles and absence of deliberate default are established and where administrative assistance was lacking, supporting mitigation rather than enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.