Search Results for "investor fraud"

62 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 62 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Public Interest Prevails Over Private Rights: : BIADA vs M/s Scope Sales Pvt Ltd (2026 INSC 89)

The case arose when the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) allotted land to M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. for commercial use. Subsequentl...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices for Non-Resident Taxpayer Due to Lack of Jurisdictional Satisfaction. Section 148 notices under Income Tax Act, 1961 set aside as Assessing Officer failed to record reasons and obtain sanction before issuing notices beyond four years.

The petitioner, a non-resident Indian residing in Dubai, was regularly assessed to tax in India on income accruing or arising in India. He had investe...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Chit Fund Fraud Case on Grounds of Parity and Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Cheating. Co-accused already granted bail by Sessions Court; applicants similarly placed and entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC.

The Bombay High Court considered two bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by Sachin Vasant Shelar (accus...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Authority for Advance Ruling's Refusal to Give Ruling on Tax Liability of Capital Gains from Sale of Shares by Mauritius-Based Company. Authority's Order Set Aside as Without Jurisdiction Since Proviso to Section 245R(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 Not Attracted.

The petitioner, Mahindra BT Investment Co. (Mauritius) Ltd., a company incorporated in Mauritius and a tax resident there, filed an application for ad...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging SEBI Consent Guidelines Requiring Pendency of Proceedings. Requirement of pendency of court proceedings or adjudication for consent applications under SEBI Guidelines is not arbitrary and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioners, Shilpa Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of cl...