<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (11) TMI 1848 - Allahabad High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295158</link>
    <description>After filing of the charge sheet, continued detention required concrete material and could not rest on bare apprehension. The Court applied an individualized assessment of each accused&#039;s attributed role: Rahul Kothari was not shown to have the Managing Director&#039;s representative role, and further custody was treated as unnecessary once investigation had substantially ended, so bail was granted. Vikram Kothari was alleged to be the Managing Director and principal actor in the credit transactions, and the Court treated the allegations, bank exposure, and public-money recovery concerns as sufficient to justify continued custody at that stage, so bail was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 May 2021 08:28:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1848 - Allahabad High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295158</link>
      <description>After filing of the charge sheet, continued detention required concrete material and could not rest on bare apprehension. The Court applied an individualized assessment of each accused&#039;s attributed role: Rahul Kothari was not shown to have the Managing Director&#039;s representative role, and further custody was treated as unnecessary once investigation had substantially ended, so bail was granted. Vikram Kothari was alleged to be the Managing Director and principal actor in the credit transactions, and the Court treated the allegations, bank exposure, and public-money recovery concerns as sufficient to justify continued custody at that stage, so bail was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>