Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The intention of the legislature is very clear and unambiguous that the moment any eventuality as mentioned in Section 45(5) occurs, the penalty shall be leviable as mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 45 of the Gujarat Sales tax Act, 1969”, the Supreme Court observed.
Supreme Court said that the object and purpose of the enactment of UAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. To punish such a person who is continued as a member of such unlawful association which is declared unlawful due to unlawful activities can be said to be in furtherance of providing for effective prevention of the unlawful activities.
Gujarat High Court: B.N. Karia, J. rejected an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that any default or delay in the payment
Calcutta High Court: In a case wherein directors of the Board of society had published defamatory statements against the Vice Chairman of
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., quashed a defamation complaint filed against the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, Arnab
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Prasanta Mahapatra, Adjudicating Officer, while imposing a penalty of ₹6,00,000/- on Capital First Ltd. (Noticee),
Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. expressed that, Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Srinagar: Sanjeev Kumar, J., while addressing a matter in respect to Section 138 NI Act, stated that
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal which was filed against the Order-in-Appeal
Meghalaya High Court: W. Diengdoh, J., while refusing to quash a criminal case against a journalist as the Facebook post shared by the
Gujarat High Court: Gita Gopi, J., while addressing an issue with regard to abetment to suicide held that in accordance with the ingredients
Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., while deciding the appeal filed impugning the order and judgment passed with regard to acquittal for
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT): Justice P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by a shipping company against the
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of A. Hariprasad and A.Anil Kumar, JJ., released the appellant as no intention to commit
Bombay High Court: A.M. Badar, J. addressed the present appeal challenging the Judgment and order of the trial court by setting aside
Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. allowed a petition filed by bank official praying for quashing proceedings initiated against him for
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected petitioner’s application
Tripura High Court: S. Talapatra, J. allowed an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Judge whereby the appellant was convicted under Section