Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court held that amounts repayable after a specified period, with promised quarterly interest, fell within the wide definition of "deposit" under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. It further held that Section 2(d) uses expansive language and includes private persons receiving such deposits, so respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were financial establishments for MPID Act purposes. Prior failure of IPC-based proceedings and the civil character of the transaction did not bar recourse under Section 3, because the MPID Act provides an independent statutory remedy operating in a distinct field. The High Court's contrary view was set aside.
The Supreme Court held that amounts repayable after a specified period, with promised quarterly interest, fell within the wide definition of "deposit" under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. It further held that Section 2(d) uses expansive language and includes private persons receiving such deposits, so respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were financial establishments for MPID Act purposes. Prior failure of IPC-based proceedings and the civil character of the transaction did not bar recourse under Section 3, because the MPID Act provides an independent statutory remedy operating in a distinct field. The High Court's contrary view was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.