https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768610 Advances received under agreements for sale of immovable property did not constitute deposits under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 because they fell within the statutory exclusion for sums received as advance consideration and were linked to adjustment against the property transaction. Where such advances are payable back only if required permissions are lacking, they may be treated as deposits; that condition was not established here. The HC also held that criminal proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the complaint was found to be mala fide, vexatious, and an abuse of process under the Bhajan Lal principles. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:32:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768610 Advances received under agreements for sale of immovable property did not constitute deposits under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 because they fell within the statutory exclusion for sums received as advance consideration and were linked to adjustment against the property transaction. Where such advances are payable back only if required permissions are lacking, they may be treated as deposits; that condition was not established here. The HC also held that criminal proceedings could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the complaint was found to be mala fide, vexatious, and an abuse of process under the Bhajan Lal principles. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768610