NCLAT: Unenforced Equitable Mortgage is Corporate Debtor’s Asset, Not to Be Treated as Margin Money || NCLT Approves Hindustan Unilever’s Ice Cream Business Demerger into Kwality Wall’s || Supreme Court: Bar Councils Cannot Charge Over Rs 750 for Enrollment or Withhold Applicants’ Docs || SC Cancels POCSO Conviction, Observing Crime Resulted from Love, Not Lust, After Marriage || Supreme Court: Advocates Can be Summoned Only under S.132 BSA Exceptions with Prior Officer Approval || Allahabad HC: Juvenile Conviction Cannot be Treated as Disqualification for Government Jobs || Delhi HC: DV Act Rights of Daughter-in-Law Cannot Deny In-Laws’ Right to Reside in Home || Delhi HC: Waitlist Panel Cannot Be Segregated, Vacancies Must Be Filled From Valid Waitlist || Delhi HC: Matrimonial FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Couple’s Settlement Agreement is Not Executed || Delhi HC Bars All India Carrom Federation from Using “India” or “Indian” in its Name

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 :