|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1442 Records
-
2022 (2) TMI 1263 - ITAT BANGALORE
Delayed employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due date - scope of amendment - HELD THAT:- We hold that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act will not have application for the relevant assessment year, namely assessment year 2018-2019. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to grant deduction in respect of employees' contribution to PF and ESI since the assessee has made the payment before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly. - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1262 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL JAIPUR
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Upon a detailed consideration of the application and documents filed by the Applicant, it is apparent that the payment of the claim amount has been defaulted by the Corporate Debtor. Hence, this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to commence CIRP against the Corporate Debtor as envisaged under the provisions of IBC, 2016.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1261 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order of the revisional authority which has confirmed the order and findings of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority and this court is the fourth forum where the petitioner wants to interfere with the concurrent findings of all the three authorities below.
The impugned order need not be interfered - petition dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1260 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Seeking extension of date of hearing - bereavement in the family of the petitioners - petitioners submits that if a date of appearance can be fixed after the period of mourning, they will comply with the impugned summons - Compliance with the summons issued - HELD THAT:- Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Director General of GST Intelligence very fairly submitted that respondents would have no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners.
It is directed that petitioners shall respond to the summons dated 02.02.2022 and appear before respondent No.4 on 08.03.2022 at 11.30 a.m., physically - Writ Petition is disposed of.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1259 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Seeking declaration of petitioners Ramphal and Bhoma Ram as proclaimed persons - Section 138 of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that Ramphal and Bhoma Ram have been made accused in FIR no.121 dated 13.03.2020 registered under Section 174-A IPC on account of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, dated 22.01.2020 in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as the above said persons had not appeared in the said proceedings and were declared as proclaimed persons. It is not in dispute that there has been compromise effected in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been withdrawn vide order dated 03.02.2021
A perusal of the judgment in BALDEV CHAND BANSAL VERSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER US [2019 (1) TMI 1949 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] would show that in a similar case where the FIR had been registered under Section 174-A IPC in view of the order passed in proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, while declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed offender, a co-ordinate Bench after relying upon various judgments observed that once the main petition under Section 138 of the Act stands withdrawn in view of an amicable settlement between the parties, the continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The said aspect was one of the main consideration for allowing the petition and setting aside the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person as well as quashing of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC.
In the present case as is apparent from the facts hereinabove, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been withdrawn on account of compromise. In such a situation, continuation of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of process of Court.
Petition allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1258 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Scope of amended Sections 148 and 148A have come into force with effect from 1st April, 2021 - Revenue relying upon the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation in Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 has issued notifications and the impugned notices treating the time line for issuance of notice under Section 148 (unamended) extended upto 30th June, 2021 - HELD THAT:- Referring to the amendment made in Sections 147 to 151 of the Act of 1961 with effect from 1st April, 2021 by the Finance Act, 2021, it is submitted that Madras High Court has taken note of the decisions of the Delhi High Court, Calcutta High Court, Allahabad High Court and other High Courts and quashed the impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. However, liberty has been granted to the Revenue to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after making all the compliances as required by law, if limitation for it survives vide Para-19 of the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proceedings initiated by the impugned notices issued under unamended Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 would be without jurisdiction and bad in law. Therefore, petitioners have assailed it in the present writ petitions.
Revenue have referred to the judgment rendered by Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Palak Khatuja vs. Union of India [2021 (9) TMI 199 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] and submitted that it was decided in favour of the Revenue by learned Single Judge. However, the appeal is pending before the learned Division Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents have prayed for time to file counter affidavit. They however do not dispute that the Division Bench of different High Courts, referred to above, have decided in favour of the assessee on similar issues.
On consideration of the aforesaid, respondents are allowed one week time to file counter affidavit. Three days’ time thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file reply, if so advised.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking declaration of results of 33rd Annual General Meeting held on 30th December, 2021 - defendant submits that the results cannot be declared since according to him results once declared, the process cannot be reversed - HELD THAT:- Mr. Khambata finds that the reason for delay in declaring of the results is said to be pendency of Interim Application (L) no. 29574 of 2021 and defendant no. 3 has claimed that the matter is sub judice. It is clarified that pendency of the above two Interim Applications being IA (Lodging) No. 376 of 2022 and IA No. 121 of 2022 have no bearing on the requirement reiterated by SEBI.
Interim Application(L) No. 4788 of 2022 is taken on board and disposed as infructuous without prejudice to the Applicant’s right, if any, to seek review of order dated 23rd December, 2021 - List on 24th February, 2022.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1256 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issues involve require affidavit from the respondents for final adjudication.
List this matter for final hearing after seven weeks. At the time of hearing, parties should be ready with the short written notes of arguments.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition - as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the petitioner has got remedy only before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - petitioner submitted that inspite of the provisions of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, this Court can entertain the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- It is clear that as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the petitioner has got remedy by way of an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. However, without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them, the petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
On a perusal of the recent judgments of the Apex Court in AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND ANOTHER VERSUS MATHEW K.C. [2018 (2) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT], it is clear that when an appeal remedy is provided under the Act, the aggrieved party should exhaust the said remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Forum and the Writ Petition/Civil Revision Petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. When the petitioner can raise all the grounds available to them under law before the Appellate Forum, the filing of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 cannot be entertained.
The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal is not maintainable - the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1254 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Seeking approval of Resolution Plan - Section 30(6) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- From the catena of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the scope of approval of the Resolution Plan, it is amply made clear that only limited judicial review is available for the Adjudicating Authority under Section 30(2) and Section 31 of IBC, 2016 and this Adjudicating Authority cannot venture into the commercial aspects of the decisions taken by the Committee of Creditors - reliance can be placed in the case of K. SASHIDHAR VERSUS INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 1043 - SUPREME COURT].
It is also satisfying that the Resolution Plan is in accordance with sections 30 and 31 of IBC, 2016. Thus, the Resolution Plan is hereby approved and is binding on the Corporate Debtor and other stakeholders involved so that revival of the Debtor Company shall come into force with immediate effect and the "Moratorium" imposed under section 14 of IBC, 2016 shall not have any effect henceforth. In case of non-compliance of this order or withdrawal of Resolution Plan, the performance guarantee amount already paid by the Resolution Applicant shall stand forfeited, in addition to the Resolution Applicant being liable for any other action as per law.
Application allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1253 - SUPREME COURT
Constitutional Validity of Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 - whether Legislature of Assam lacked competence to enact the Assam Act, 2004 or not? - whether Manipur Legislature lacked competence to promulgateManipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012, or not - HELD THAT:- This Court in Bimolangshu Roy [2017 (7) TMI 1260 - SUPREME COURT] observed that Article 194(3) of the Constitution deals with powers, privileges and immunities of the House of the Legislature and its members but does not authorize the State Legislature to create offices such as those of Parliamentary Secretaries. It was noted that in some cases, the power to legislate was conferred by certain Articles in the Constitution on matters specified therein without corresponding entries in the lists in the Seventh Schedule, such as in the case of Article 3 under which the Parliament is competent to create or extinguish a State but there is no corresponding entry in List I of the Seventh Schedule. In certain other cases, corresponding entries in the lists of the Seventh Schedule are found with reference to the power to legislate as expressly conferred in the text of some Articles of the Constitution, as is seen with entries 38, 39 and 40 of List II. With respect to the latter category, this Court held that where the power to legislate is sourced to a dedicated Article in the Constitution, legislative authority with respect to a closely associated or the same topic as contained in the Article cannot be sought from the corresponding entry in the list read with Article 246. To substantiate, it was further elaborated that even if entries 38, 39 and 40 in List II were not there in the Seventh Schedule, the State Legislature would still be competent to make laws on topics indicated in those three entries because of the authority contained in Articles 164(5), 186, 194, 195 etc. Therefore, any interpretation on legislative power sought to be given to these entries which is not contemplated by the corresponding Article, was considered to be repugnant to the scheme of the Constitution, as the Article expressly conferring legislative authority is the source of legislating power. Noticing that the text of both Articles 194(3) and the relevant portion of entry 39 are substantially similar, this Court was of the firm opinion that creation of new offices by legislation would be outside the scope of Article 194(3).
The Appellants in the present matter contended that this Court did not appreciate the relevance of entry 40 of List II while assessing the Assam Legislature's competence to enact the Assam Act, 2004. The entry 40 which relates to salaries and allowances of the Ministers of the State cannot be resorted to, for the purpose of justifying the legislative competence in enacting the Assam Act, 2004. The relevant entry is entry 39 which corresponds to Article 194(3) of the Constitution of India - Indeed, the 2012 Act was not declared unconstitutional by any court before the High Court delivered the impugned judgment and therefore, it was well within the competence of the Manipur Legislature to repeal the 2012 Act. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the Manipur Legislature did not have the competence to enact the 2012 Act as a result of which, the Repealing Act, 2018 could not have been made. The law passed by the legislature is good law till it is declared as unconstitutional by a competent Court or till it is repealed. There is no error committed by the Manipur Legislature in repealing the 2012 Act in light of the judgment of this Court in Bimolangshu Roy.
Validity of the saving Clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 - HELD THAT:- An unconstitutional law, be it either due to lack of legislative competence or in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, is void ab initio - In Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay [1954 (9) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT], it was held by a constitution bench of this Court that the law-making power of the State is restricted by a written fundamental law and any law enacted and opposed to the fundamental law is in excess of the legislative authority and is thus, a nullity. A declaration of unconstitutionality brought about by lack of legislative power as well as a declaration of unconstitutionality brought about by reason of abridgement of fundamental rights goes to the root of the power itself, making the law void in its inception.
There is no question of repeal of a statute which has been declared as unconstitutional by a Court. The very declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed. The consequences of declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute have to be dealt with only by the Court.
Having held that the Manipur Legislature was not competent to introduce a saving Clause in the Repealing Act, 2018, what remains to be considered is the fate of the acts, deeds etc. undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries who were appointed under the 2012 Act. Nullification of transactions affecting the public due to the acts done by the Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under the 2012 Act would cause serious damage to third parties and create significant confusion and irregularity in the conduct of public business. Therefore, in exercise of powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we consider it necessary to save only those acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act during their tenure.
The Manipur Legislature was competent to enact the Repealing Act, 2018. The saving Clause in the Repealing Act, 2018 is struck down. However, this shall not affect the acts, deeds and decisions duly undertaken by the Parliamentary Secretaries under the 2012 Act till discontinuation of their appointments, which are hereby saved.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1252 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking liberty to withdraw this petition - HELD THAT:- If the petitioner files an appeal before the CESTAT within one week from today, the CESTAT is requested to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the said appeal within six months from the date of the petitioner filing an appeal. The petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the said appeal proposed to be filed.
Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1251 - SC ORDER
Grant of stay on the order - HELD THAT:- Interim order granted by this Court on 27.08.2021 and extended from time to time is further extended till the disposal of the Appeal before the NCLAT - the NCLAT is requested to dispose of the Company Appeal as expeditiously as possible.
The appeal is disposed of.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1250 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - goods detained without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration that the petitioners claiming to be the owners of the goods in question, which has been detained, are ready and agreeable to pay the applicable tax and penalty as per amended provision of Section 129 of the said Act, it is deemed fit that the detained goods in question shall be released on making payment as per amended provision of Section 129(1) of the said Act and which is to be made by the petitioners within seven days from date and on receipt of such payment, authorities concerned shall release the detained goods in question within 72 hours from receipt of such payment and in the interest of justice and considering the fact that the petitioners being the owner of the detained goods in question could not get effective opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order on 29th January, 2022, the said impugned order dated 29th January, 2022 is set aside.
Matter remanded to the authority concerned to consider afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or its authorised representative - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1249 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Validity of Refund Order - refund challenged on the grounds that subsequent to passing of the impugned order of refund, he has been able to get some material on the basis of which he will be entitled to get back the refund in question - HELD THAT:- There is no illegality or wrongfulness in the impugned order, and hence the impugned order need not be interfered with.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of complaint without the Company being made an accused in the proceedings - sub-standard seeds - germination of 81% as against the prescribed germination of 98.6% - claim of the petitioner that the report of the said analyst was never furnished to him - violation of Section 16 of the Act.
Whether the complaint was maintainable without the Company being made an accused in the proceedings? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Company is not made a party in these proceedings which is in violation of Section 21. The proceedings without, at the outset, the Company being made a party would not be maintainable. The issue in this regard need not detain this Court for long or delve deeper in to the matter as identical provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS (P.) LTD. [2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that there can be no vicarious liability unless there is a prosecution against the company.
Whether the entire proceedings get vitiated on account of prejudice and violation of Section 16 of the Act? - HELD THAT:- The date of collection of sample is 12-11-2020. The Seed Analyst gave his report on 4-12-2020. The life of the seed was till 18-02-2021. All these are undisputed facts. After the life of the seed itself had expired by the time prosecution was launched which was on 16-03-2021 the right of the accused to get the seed re-assessed by the Central Seed Laboratory under sub-section (2) of Section 16 is rendered illusory. An important right of the accused is taken away by the callous action on the part of the prosecution. If the life of the seed had expired, the seed cannot be sent for a second opinion by the Central Seed Laboratory. It ought to have been done prior to the expiry of life of the seed. Therefore, taking away the right under subsection (2) of Section 16 has caused great prejudice to the petitioner or even the Company against whom the notice is issued.
It is trite law that procedural violation causing prejudice will have to be construed strictly and it cannot be said that trial should continue notwithstanding the right under sub-section (2) of Section 16 being taken away by indolence of the respondent/complainant - both with regard to the Company not being made a party and the entire proceedings getting vitiated on account of prejudice being caused to the accused, this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, failing which such proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
The Criminal Petition is allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1247 - SC ORDER
Grant of permission to the applicant-appellant to maintain this appeal - amendment in resolution plan - HELD THAT:- The grievance projected in the said appeal by one of the resolution applicants in the corporate insolvency resolution process was essentially concerning its resolution plan and consideration thereof by the Committee of Creditors. Looking to the nature of grievance so raised and the nature of order passed by NCLAT, there are no reason found to accede locus to the erstwhile Director of corporate debtor to maintain this appeal.
The application seeking permission to file appeal stands rejected - Appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1246 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment u/s 153C - Nature of land sold - Long term capital gain on account of transfer of agriculture land - converted lands were transferred by the assessee to the company by way of sale deed - assessee contended that the land sold was not taxable as the same not being a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) - AO was of the view that the lands were converted in the name of the assessee on 21.06.2005, the transferee being company could not own agricultural lands as per section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the assessment year under consideration. It is an undisputed fact that documents which are seized referred to in para 10 of this order do not establish any co-relation with the additions made in these assessment years. This requirement u/s. 153C of the Act was very essential for assessment u/s. provisions of section 153C which is a jurisdictional fact as held by the Supreme Court in Sinhgad Technical Edn. Society (supra). After taking note of the material as recorded in para 10 of this order, there was no seized incriminating seized material so as to frame assessment for these two assessment years u/s. 153C. DR could not point out to the contrary. Being so, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Sinhgad Technical Edn. Society [2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the assessment framed u/s. 153C of the Act to be based on material found during the course of search which relate to or belong to the assessee and since we have held that there is no seized material for addition made by the AO, we do not wish to address the arguments made by the ld. AR for the assessee that the condition precedent for initiating the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act having not been satisfied in the present case, therefore the assessment is liable to be annulled. Accordingly, we hold that the addition made by the AO is not based on seized material found in the course of search and therefore the addition cannot be sustained.
Taxability of capital gain arising out of transfer of land - main reason for treating the land as non-agricultural is that the land was converted for usage of non-agricultural purposes - As brought on record by the assessee that the land revenue was paid as applicable to agricultural land only. The land got converted by the assessee for non-agricultural purposes and conversion permission was granted on the condition that the land should be used for non-agricultural purposes within two years, otherwise original character of the land i.e., agricultural in nature would be restored. The assessee has not used the land for non-agricultural purposes even after conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes. In similar circumstances, in the case of Shri M.R. Anandaram (HUF) [2016 (6) TMI 175 - ITAT BANGALORE] the Tribunal observed that though the said land was converted for non-agricultural purposes, but cultivation of land continued till the date of sale of the land.
Thus, the land should have been treated as agricultural land and exempt from capital gain in view of section 2(14) of the Act. The Tribunal also observed that even after conversion, the assessee was carrying on agricultural operations and conversion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non-agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order.
In the present case, the land sold by the assessee was classified as agricultural land in the revenue records. The RTC filed by the assessee before us shows that the assessee raised crops of Ragi and Paddy in certain portion and other portion was temporarily kept idle on account of certain difficulties. Being so, the status of the land therefore remained as agricultural land since mandatory condition stipulated in the conversion order is not complied with and on this count, the CIT(Appeals) was not correct in holding that the land which is subject matter of sale is not agricultural land on the reason that the land was converted for non-agricultural purposes. In view of this, the sale of the impugned land is to be treated as exempt from capital gain in terms of section 2(14) r.w. sections 45 & 48 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1245 - ITAT COCHIN
Validity of orders passed by CIT-A - denail of natural justice - assessment concluded under Section 153C r.w.s. 144 - on account of closure of the business the Director of the company had sought employment abroad - As submitted by the learned A.R. pending the appeal proceedings before the learned CIT(A) remand report has been called from the AO, who had done the same without giving opportunity to the assessee to cross examin the witnesses -submission that when the assessee’s representative had gone to the AO’s office for cross examination the AO denied opportunity of cross examination on the ground that no person from the assessee company in the capacity of Director/Managing Director appeared and that the authorised representative is not permitted to cross examination the witnesses
HELD THAT:- The basic principle of natural justice demands that if any evidence is being used against the assessee the same must be put to the assessee for rebuttal. In the present case admittedly it is an ex-parte assessment. Even before the Tribunal in the original proceedings it is fairly admitted that the Director of the company is no more operating the company and on account of losses suffered she has gone abroad for employment. It is also an admitted fact that it is not necessary that the assessee should cross examine or the Director of the company should cross examine the witnesses. Assessees can fully authorise a representative to do cross examination. To that extent the AO’s view that the authorised representative cannot cross examine the witnesses is admittedly erroneous. In these circumstances, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. All issues are left open
-
2022 (2) TMI 1244 - SC ORDER
Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted - investigation done by the respondent has been completed or not - Applicability of provisions of section 45 of the PMLA - bail petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be rejected solely on the ground that the amended provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA bars filing of bail petitions - it was held by Madras High Court that this court does not believe that the petitioner are not guilty of the alleged offences and in such circumstances, this court cannot give a finding that the petitioners are not likely to commit offence while on bail. It is also alleged that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood that the petitioners may flee the jurisdiction of this Court to avoid the process of law.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere in these Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly.
............
|
