Supreme Court: Promotion Suitability Must be Decided by Experts, Courts Cannot Create New Methods || SC: Market Integrity is Paramount; Rule Violators Cannot Escape Liability by Citing Investor Gains || SC: Plaintiff's Reply to Counterclaim in Commercial Suits Must Meet Written Statement Deadline || SC: Pre-2016 Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery Certificates Cannot Support Insolvency Notices || SC: Children's Court Cannot Try Child as Adult Without Passing a Reasoned Order under JJ Act || SC: Contractual Clauses Denying Interest on Security Deposits Does Not Violate Public Policy || J&K&L HC: Unamended Pleading Loses Effect After Amendment; Party Cannot Benefit From Own Default || Allahabad HC: Wife's Maintenance Need Not be Fixed at 25% of Husband's Net Income || Kerala HC: Social Customs Alone Cannot Prove Bride Entrusted Gold to Husband or In-Laws || Karnataka HC: Century Club Qualifies as a Public Authority under the RTI Act Due to Land Grant

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 :