Consumer Court Directs Amazon, Seller to Pay Rs.4.68 Lakh to Customer as Compensation || MP HC: Pension is a Proprietary Right and Cannot be Withheld unless Grave Misconduct is Proved || HP High Court: ITBP Constable Removal For Affair Disproportionate; Orders Compulsory Retirement || Calcutta High Court: Trade Licence Not Required For Advocates’ Partnership Registration || Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Compel Plaintiffs to Accept Compensation Instead of Injunctions || Delhi HC: Saying “Maro Sale Ko” During a Fight Alone Does Not by Itself Establish Intent to Kill || Delhi HC Ordered Removal of Fake News About Judges’ London Badminton Event, Restrained its Sharing || Bombay HC: Calling Police over Routine Transfers or External Complaints is Misconduct || Delhi HC Upheld EC’s Decision Banning Political Ads in the Delhi Metro During Model Code of Conduct || Delhi HC: In the Telegram Case Entire Social Media Platforms Can Be Blocked U/S 69A of the IT Act

R. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. - (High Court of Madras) (18 Sep 2015)

Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to Subhiksha promoter

MANU/TN/2944/2015

Criminal

The Court denied anticipatory bail to R. Subramanian, noting that it had already passed lenient orders in the past in efforts to enable some repayment to depositors of the 49 accused companies that the Petitioner was associated with. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that it was not sufficiently shown that giving Mr. Subramanian unfettered access to his office without fear of arrest would advance the cause of the depositors, given the documents already seized by prosecution.

Tags : ANTICIPATORY BAIL DEPOSITORS ACCESS

Share :