The direction issued by the High Court to the effect that 72 hours’ notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law

Category:   Posted on: January 4, 2023


Prima facie, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. The petitioners have challenged the action of the RBI, vide which the RBI issued directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose certain information, which according to the petitioners is not only contrary to the provisions as contained in the RTI Act, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but also adversely affects the right to privacy of such Banks and their consumers.

Category:   Posted on: October 1, 2022

The State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship (India) Limited (Supreme Court)

The statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act

Category:   Posted on: September 22, 2022

Union Of India vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

Section 3(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed

Category:   Posted on: September 13, 2022

Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors (Supreme Court)

The High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person

Category:   Posted on: September 10, 2022

Sri Marcel Martins vs. M. Printer & Ors. (Supreme Court)

It is manifest that while the expression “fiduciary capacity” may not be capable of a precise definition, it implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. The expression is in fact wider in its import for it extends to all such situations as place the parties in positions that are founded on confidence and trust on the one part and good faith on the other. In determining whether a relationship is based on trust or confidence, relevant to determining whether they stand in a fiduciary capacity, the Court shall have to take into consideration the factual context in which the question arises for it is only in the factual backdrop that the existence or otherwise of a fiduciary relationship can be deduced in a given case.

Category:   Posted on: September 9, 2022


The question whether a particular sale is a benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining the question no absolute formulas or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations can be laid. After saying so, this Court spelt out the following six circumstances which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of the transaction

Category:   Posted on: September 9, 2022


The commercial or business decision taken by the Liquidator for conducting the sale of the movable/ immovable assets of the Corporate Debtor in liquidation cannot be challenged. The Appellate Authority cannot don the mantle of a supervisory authority for overseeing the validity of the approach of the Liquidator in opting for a particular mode of sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Category:   Posted on: August 26, 2022