Search Results for "fraudulent scheme"

436 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 436 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Banks' Appeals in RBI Fraud Classification Case Regarding Natural Justice Requirements. Court Holds No Absolute Right to Personal Hearing or Full Forensic Audit Report Disclosure Under RBI Master Directions Issued Under Section 35A Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

The dispute arose from the classification of loan accounts as 'fraud' by banks under the Reserve Bank of India's Master Directions. The appellant bank...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Applicant in Financial Fraud Case Involving Deposit of Rs. 1.25 Crore. Applicant's Detention Not Justified as Investigation Complete and Trial Likely to Be Protracted, Meeting Triple Test for Bail Under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The applicant, Milind Satish Sawant, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in conne...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA Due to Pending Title Dispute. Availability of Alternate Civil Suit Remedy Renders Writ Petition Under Article 227 Not Maintainable.

The petitioner, M/s. Blue Heaven Co-op Housing Society Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Order Allowing Production of Additional Documents in RAE&R Suit. Court Held That Mere Production of Documents Without Ruling on Admissibility Does Not Cause Prejudice to Petitioners.

The case involves four writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 1 August 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Cour...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...