SC: SARFAESI Act Was Not Applicable in Nagaland Before its 2021 Adoption, Dismisses Creditor’s Plea || SC: Lis Pendens Applies To Money Suits on Mortgaged Property, Including Ex Parte Proceedings || Kerala HC: Civil Courts Cannot Grant Injunctions in NCLT Matters and Such Orders Can Be Set Aside || Bombay High Court: Technical Breaks to Temporary Employees Cannot Deny Maternity Leave Benefits || NCLAT: Appellate Jurisdiction Limited to Orders Deciding Parties’ Rights, Not Procedural Directions || NCLAT: Personal Guarantors Involved In NCLT Proceedings Can Appeal Against Insolvency Admission || Supreme Court: Foreign Companies’ Head Office Expenses in India are Capped under Section 44C || SC Directs Trial Courts to Systematically Catalogue Witnesses and Evidence in Criminal Judgments || SC Calls For Sensitising Future Generations on Equality in Marriage to Combat Dowry Practices || SC: Separate Suits Against Confirmed Auction Sales are Barred; Remedy Available under Sec 47

Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau and ors v. Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj and ors - (High Court of Kerala) (09 Nov 2015)

Justice not only done but also seen to be done: Kerala HC

Criminal

Kerala High Court held that the Director of Vigilance can give ‘timely directions’ while conducting investigation, but not after. Observations and findings on merits of the court below on the investigation below were set aside. The matter pertained to a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau of Kerala investigation into an alleged demand of Rs. 5 crores to renew bar licences by Kerala’s Finance Minister. The Court cautioned against the possibility of an improper investigation by State a department when the accused endured as a Minister in the government.

Tags : VIGILANCE MINISTER IMPROPER INVESTIGATION

Share :