Delhi HC: Passing Off is a Distinct Right, Which Resides in its Own Common Law Space || Delhi HC Seeks ICICI’s Response on Plea Alleging Lack of Accessibility Standards for PWDs || Bombay HC: Saying ‘I Love You’ in with No Sexual Intent Isn’t Sexual Harassment || Rajasthan HC: Centre & State to Issue Directions Regarding Excessive Use of Mobile Phones by Children || Allahabad HC: Undressing Woman but Failing to Commit Intercourse Amounts to ‘Attempt to Rape’ || MP HC: Taxpayers with Appeals that are Pending are Eligible for 50% Relief under Samadhan Scheme || Del. HC: Indian Citizen Apprehending Arrest for Offence Committed Abroad Can Invoke Sec. 438 of CrPC || Delhi HC: Can Grant Ad-Interim Maintenance without Filing Specific Application || Delhi HC: Govt. to Take Steps for Involving Mental Health Professionals in Premature Release Process || Del. HC: “Goodwill” for Purposes of Passing off, is in the Name Under Which Business Is Done

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 :