<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1062 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753009</link>
    <description>MP HC quashed Central Government&#039;s sanction dated 30.11.2021 under Section 212(1)(c) of Companies Act, 2013 for SFIO investigation. Court held the sanction was arbitrary and illegal as Central Government failed to form requisite opinion based on material circumstances. Since company was under CIRP and liquidation proceedings were pending with Section 66 IBC application for recovery, SFIO investigation would constitute double jeopardy. Court found no public interest element existed to warrant investigation and emphasized that mere mechanical ordering without proper opinion formation violates statutory requirements. The sanction lacked reasoning and failed natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 08:32:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1062 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753009</link>
      <description>MP HC quashed Central Government&#039;s sanction dated 30.11.2021 under Section 212(1)(c) of Companies Act, 2013 for SFIO investigation. Court held the sanction was arbitrary and illegal as Central Government failed to form requisite opinion based on material circumstances. Since company was under CIRP and liquidation proceedings were pending with Section 66 IBC application for recovery, SFIO investigation would constitute double jeopardy. Court found no public interest element existed to warrant investigation and emphasized that mere mechanical ordering without proper opinion formation violates statutory requirements. The sanction lacked reasoning and failed natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>