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...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
A challenge to absolute confiscation was held maintainable because it concerned confiscability and reverse-burden issues, not valuation, and the dispute fell within the policy threshold exception. The Court held that reasonable belief under Section 123 is governed by the prudent man test, not the place of seizure; concealment of high-value gold in a waist belt and the surrounding circumstances justified the reverse burden despite the absence of foreign markings. It further held that Section 108 statements remained substantive evidence because the retraction was highly belated and unsupported by coercion. The respondents failed to prove lawful provenance of high-purity bullion, and the order of absolute confiscation with penalties was restored.
A challenge to absolute confiscation was held maintainable because it concerned confiscability and reverse-burden issues, not valuation, and the dispute fell within the policy threshold exception. The Court held that reasonable belief under Section 123 is governed by the prudent man test, not the place of seizure; concealment of high-value gold in a waist belt and the surrounding circumstances justified the reverse burden despite the absence of foreign markings. It further held that Section 108 statements remained substantive evidence because the retraction was highly belated and unsupported by coercion. The respondents failed to prove lawful provenance of high-purity bullion, and the order of absolute confiscation with penalties was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.