Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The very purpose of the constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory if the authorities concerned are permitted to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the PMLA”.
“Since the territorial jurisdiction of the present case is in Chennai only, therefore Chennai being one of the jurisdictional area under the notification issued by the Central Government, which comes under the jurisdiction of the PDSJ, Chennai, naturally the said case has to be tried in the said Court”
Supreme Court clarified that the bail has been granted, solely on medical grounds and not on merits
Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee were stopped at the airport on 05-06-2023 from travelling abroad because of the Look Out Circular
Madras High Court concurred with the view of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, that the petition, though maintainable cannot be entertained after remand, and in this case, it can certainly not be entertained.
The Delhi High Court and Rose Avenue District Court had previously denied the Ex-Deputy Chief Minister’s Bail plea.
On April 28, the Supreme Court sat to pass a stay order on Calcutta High Court’s Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay’s order directing SC’s Secretary General to produce the transcript of his “controversial” interview, wherein he had made remarks against Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the Teachers Recruitment Scam case, which was pending before him
This report provides Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
This report provides Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
The division bench of Madras High Court delivered a split verdict and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to place it before another judge.
The habeas Corpus petition was filed in relation to the cash-for-jobs scam case, in which the Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, has been accused of accepting bribes from candidates in exchange of appointment to the State Transportation Corporation
The action came following the Supreme Court’s decision, wherein the Court allowed the appeals arising out of the order for de novo investigation and set aside the directions issued in the original petition for de novo investigation. Further, the Court allowed the ED to continue its investigation.
Following the arrest, Senthil Balaji complained of chest pain and was taken to Government hospital for a medical checkup.
While Xiaomi’s petition was held to be maintainable on the fulcrum of Article 14, however, the impugned provision as per the High Court did not manifest any arbitrariness.
Delhi High Court observed that in absence of any cogent, supervening circumstances necessitating cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused, the Court cannot merely cancel the bail so granted.
Allahabad High Court said that there was no requirement to take the accused into custody when he appeared before the Trial Court and cooperated in the investigation throughout, and the Investi gating Agency has never thought to arrest him under Section 19 of the PMLA
The writ petitions raise an important question relating to the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provisionally attach properties under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) even though no proceedings relating to the predicate offense may have been initiated by the competent agency functioning under an independent statute and in terms of which the scheduled offense stands created.
Patiala House Court (New Delhi): In a bail application plea under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Supreme Court: In a special leave petition (‘SLP’) having question of law, whether Enforcement directorate (‘ED’) can attach properties of corporate debtor