Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone that the action under Section 56 could, at all, have been initiated.
The present contempt proceedings are pending adjudication since 2006 and all the alleged Contemnors have expressed their deep remorse and have stated that they have the utmost respect for the institution of judiciary and that it was never their intention to cause any distress or to do anything that could be construed as undermining the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law.
The High Court issued a contempt notice against an Advocate and a civic official, who acted on her request, after observing that a lawyer’s letter asking for a designated area within the Bombay High Court premises in Nagpur to feed dogs was for “publicity”.
Madras High Court: In a case where show cause notices were sent by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent 4) for short collection
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (ITAT): Addressing the issue, of whether mere rejection of the claim by an Assessing Officer would ipso
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., stayed the impugned order of Bombay High Court wherein
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the respondents
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal brief facts of which were that
Karnataka High Court: M Nagprasanna, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned second show cause notice holding The University is at
Kerala High Court: N. Nagaresh, J., addressed the instant petition filed by a Non-Banking Finance Company to challenge show-cause notices issued by
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Ajay Mohan Goel J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are that
Jharkhand High Court: Dr S.N. Pathak, J. dismissed the instant writ petition being devoid of merit. The brief facts of the case
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has, by order dated January 22, 2020, imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 1.00 lakh on
Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi: A Bench of Virender Singh, Chairperson and Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chachra, Member dismissed the original application filed,
Madras High Court: A Division Judge Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee, CJ. and M. Sundar, J., allowed a writ appeal filed against