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...
In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.
In fraud classification proceedings under RBI Master Directions, natural justice was held to require notice, disclosure of material, an opportunity to submit a written representation, and a reasoned order, but not an oral personal hearing as of right. The Court distinguished fraud classification from wilful defaulter proceedings and upheld the regulatory process as a prompt risk-mitigation mechanism. It also held that the borrower must ordinarily be furnished the forensic audit report relevant to the proposed classification, since disclosure of the report is necessary for an effective response; only portions affecting third-party rights may be withheld for recorded reasons, with an opportunity to contest non-disclosure. The appeals were partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.