Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court reiterated that social media is misused by certain people in the garb of “Freedom of Speech and Expression” by posting such material that creates hatred and disharmony among the people, such actions are detrimental to national unity and public order.
“This is unconscionable and unpardonable. It appears that, in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves are not following the discipline and are not following the mandatory directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police.”
“Individual hardship by itself cannot be a ground to hold a provision to be invalid or unworkable especially in the light of the fact that such provision is enacted keeping in mind the Directive Principles under Article 46 of the Constitution for the larger good and welfare of tribals.”
The present case is not a case where only one person has been cheated as there are many more victims, who are cheated by the applicant and in every crime, the applicant used a different team.
The bank in question was a co-operative bank located at a remote Taluka in Maharashtra. The customers were small shop keepers and local villagers who had very meagre income. The accused took advantage of such situation and siphoned their money.
By Resolution dated 12-04-2017, Permanent Selection and Appointment Committee of the High Court had resolved that for determining quota prescribed under Rule 5 of Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, actual working strength of Judges in that cadre as on 31st March of every year had to be taken into consideration.
The Single Judge in order dated 16-07-2024 held that there are enough documents proving that appellant had started construction on Virar property even though there is a status quo order, and thus, to safeguard and preserve the property, a Court Receiver needs to be appointed.
As petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice and had already questioned the appointment of KPMG as Forensic Auditor and the Report, he is free to pursue the matter before SEBI in accordance with law.
The Court stated that granting such relief would cause injustice to other applicants who were similarly situated as the petitioner and who could not submit their applications by the prescribed deadline.