<?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>Authorization to institute disgorgement proceedings need not delegate statutory power where SFIO only implements the Government&#039;s decision.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103110</link>
    <description>Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India&#039;s name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO&#039;s authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:28:54 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Authorization to institute disgorgement proceedings need not delegate statutory power where SFIO only implements the Government&#039;s decision.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103110</link>
      <description>Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India&#039;s name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO&#039;s authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:28:54 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>