Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses || Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out || Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease || Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory || NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors || NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date || Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy || NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required || NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes || Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction

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 :