Exemption for educational institutions depends on predominant object being education, with approval, accumulation and corpus rules.
Exemptions under Section 10(23C) differentiate institutions that are government funded, small non government entities within prescribed receipt thresholds, and other institutions requiring authority approval; entitlement depends on existence "solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit" via the predominant object test, with conditions on application/approval, limits on accumulation and permitted investments, treatment of voluntary contributions as income unless directed to corpus, and requirements that business income be incidental with separate accounts. (AI Summary)

GST exemption for educational institutions covers core education but taxes externally supplied or extra billed ancillary services.
GST distinguishes exempt core educational services from taxable ancillary or third party services by defining an educational institution to include pre school through higher secondary education, curriculum leading to law recognized qualifications, and approved vocational courses; private coaching and unrecognized institutes are excluded. Charitable non profit institutions and those educating specified disadvantaged groups may obtain full exemption. Exemptions cover services provided by institutions to their students, faculty and staff, while input services supplied by third parties are generally taxable. Bundled supplies are exempt when education is the predominant element; artificial or extra billed activities are taxable as mixed supplies. (AI Summary)

Vicarious liability of directors: directors can face criminal exposure for company cheque dishonour when proved in charge or negligent.
Criminal liability for dishonour of company cheques may be visited upon natural persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business; liability arises either by proving that a person was in actual control of day to day operations or by proving consent, connivance or neglect by directors or officers. The prosecution bears the initial burden to establish control, while an accused bears the onus to prove lack of knowledge or exercise of due diligence. Complaints should name the company as principal accused and contain specific averments that a director managed the company's affairs at the relevant time. (AI Summary)

Bank liability for locker theft requires compensatory payment when losses stem from security failures or employee fraud.
Banks are liable for loss of safe deposit locker contents caused by events such as fire, theft, burglary, dacoity, robbery, building collapse or fraud by bank employees; regulatory instructions tie compensatory liability to a multiple of the prevailing annual locker rent and impose on banks an affirmative duty to secure premises and prevent such incidents, limiting banks' ability to disclaim liability for failures of due diligence. (AI Summary)

Moratorium under IBC restricts suits against the corporate debtor, but prosecutions may continue against responsible individuals.
Moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor but does not preclude prosecutions against natural persons who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; nominated director immunity remains a defence and complaints must aver responsibility for non-signatory directors to justify issuance of process. (AI Summary)