<?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>2026 (10) TMI 2033 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=802090</link>
    <description>Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act permits the Central Government to assign an SFIO investigation in public interest where its opinion rests on relevant and demonstrable circumstances. Judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and does not permit reassessment of the adequacy of material unless the action is arbitrary, relies on irrelevant material, or shows non-application of mind. Quashing an FIR after settlement with certain homebuyers did not negate broader allegations of false loan documents and fund siphoning. The recorded investigation scope concerning transactions, money trail, diversion of funds, and beneficiaries supported the order&#039;s validity and excluded judicial interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2026 08:32:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=932877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 2033 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=802090</link>
      <description>Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act permits the Central Government to assign an SFIO investigation in public interest where its opinion rests on relevant and demonstrable circumstances. Judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and does not permit reassessment of the adequacy of material unless the action is arbitrary, relies on irrelevant material, or shows non-application of mind. Quashing an FIR after settlement with certain homebuyers did not negate broader allegations of false loan documents and fund siphoning. The recorded investigation scope concerning transactions, money trail, diversion of funds, and beneficiaries supported the order&#039;s validity and excluded judicial interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=802090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>