|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1115 Records
-
2020 (11) TMI 1035 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of SLP - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. However, question of law is left open.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1034 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH
Seeking recall of the admission order on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- If at all any limitation point is an issue, the applicant should have argued at threshold, since limitation issue is a mixed question of fact and law, this issue should have been raised at the time of admission or at least in the appeal filed before Hon’ble NCLAT. Moreover, matter is now pending for completion of liquidation of the company.
Now he cannot ask for recall of admission order on the ground of limitation, therefore this recall application is hereby dismissed as misconceived.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1033 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Handing over of the custody of the vehicles to the RP within one swe and affidavit - HELD THAT:- The Liquidator, as per section 429 of the Companies Act 2013, are directed to take the assistance of the Commissioner of Police in which jurisdiction this company is lying to locate the vehicle by showing the order already passed by this Bench on 26.09.2019. ‘The Commissioner of Police is hereby suggested to assist the Liquidator in taking the custody of the vehicle within fifteen days hereof - The reason is the Bank financed the vehicle could not get back - the vehicleFlying in the name of the debtor company nor could get any payment. If any delay happens in tracing the vehicle, the value of it will get further reduced.
List on 10.12.2020.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1032 - ITAT DELHI
Income attributed to the PE - Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment of the assessee company in India - Whether the transaction between the assessee and Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. being at arm’s length only, no further profit could be attributable to the assessee? - HELD THAT:- Issue covered by the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case right from the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein ITAT has consistently held that MIPL is not a DAPE of assessee company. The Assessing Officer has followed the earlier year order wherein Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. has been held to DAPE of the assessee-company and has attributed 50% of the gross trading profits of MIPL as income of the assessee-company and the commission paid by the assessee to MIPL was registered @ 0.8905556% of the total sale.
CIT (A) has though uphold the action of the Assessing Officer that the MIPL is a DAPE but has attributed only 20% of the gross trading profit of MIPL - commission paid by the assessee-company to MIPL have been accepted at Arm’s Length Price to the TPO that no discount of commission has to be made that since the commission paid was more than 20% attributed to DAPE, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT (A) questioning the order of gross profit of sales and deleting the disallowance of commission.
Now that the issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2005-06 wherein it has been held that MIPL is not DAPE of the assessee-company. The said order has been followed from Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11. Once MIPL is not held to be DAPE of assessee-company, then ostensibly no income can be attributed to the assessee company under Article 7 of DTAA, and therefore, there cannot be any question of computing income of PE or any disallowance of commission which is otherwise at Arms’ Length Price as accepted by the TPO. Similar grounds raised by the Revenue dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1031 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - availment of fake and fraudulent input tax credit - compounding of offences u/s 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It is a case of tax evasion and the offences registered against the applicant is compoundable and that the applicant has made his intention clear that he is willing to compound the offences against him in future.
The application is allowed and thus the interim bail granted to the applicant is confirmed as regular bail - this application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail is hereby allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1030 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund claim of the TDS - non filling of ITR online/e-file - Income Tax Return filed by the petitioner treated defective u/s 139 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per Section 139 of the Act, the petitioner was required to file the ITR online, which he failed to do. That apart, after August 2018, the petitioner has approached this Court vide present writ petition after a lapse of more than three years.
We are unable to accept the claim of the petitioner as we find that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay. The petitioner ought to have made claim for recovery within a reasonable time after 17.07.2018. On ascertaining what is reasonable time for claiming refund, the courts have often taken note of the period of limitation prescribed under the general Law of Limitation for filing of suits for recovery of amount due to them the same being three years.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bombay Tyers International Ltd. and others, [1998 (3) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT] has approved of the aforesaid principle. WP dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1029 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MADHYA PRADESH
Levy of GST - work order received by the applicant from the Lila Panchayat. Singrauli under Madhya Pradesh Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana. State Rural Livelihood Mission. Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Govt. of M.P. for providing Skill. Training to the youth in the district of Singrauli in Tourism and Hospitality, Healthcare, Retail, IT-ITES and Construction sector - Entry No. 3 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). dated 28th June 2017 - work order received by the applicant from Jila Panchayat, Singrauli under Madhya Pradesh Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana. State Rural Livelihood Mission. Panchayat & Rural Development Department. Govt. of M.P. for providing Skill Training to the youth in the district of Singrauli in Tourism and Hospitality. Healthcare, Retail - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the work order is not issued by Jila Panchayat as claimed by the Applicant but has been issued by M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission. Therefore, services shall be deemed to be have been provided to M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission. It is not covered in the definition of local authority. Now. it is to be examined whether M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission is covered under governmental authority or government entity.
The applicant has been asked to submit the constitution of M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission so as to examine whether it is covered under governmental authority or government entity. However, the applicant's could not give requisite information about constitution of M.P. DAY Rajya Gramin Ajivika Mission and how the Exemption is available to the applicant under entry no. 3 to Notification No. 12/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28th June 2017.
The Applicant is not eligible to get benefit covered under the entry no 3 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 for the work order for which ruling has been asked for.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1028 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, UTTAR PRADESH
Classification of goods - Vaccine Carrier - Vaccine Cold Box - falling under chapter 90-MEDICAL OR SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS AND APPARATUS under chapter heading- 9018, sub heading 901890 and Tariff item 90189099 Other instruments and appliances used in medical science and attracting rate of tax @ 6% each under Central, State Tax or not? - falling under chapter 39 PLASTICS AND ARTICLES THEREOF chapter heading 3923, subheading 392310 and Tariff item 39231030 as “Insulated ware” attracting rate of tax @ 9% each under Central and State Tax or not.
HELD THAT:- Vaccine Carrier or Vaccine Cold Box as such is not capable of keeping the vaccines and diluents cold unless the coolant packs or ice packs are placed inside Vaccine carrier or Vaccine Cold Box. As per the literature of UNICEF, the Vaccine Carriers and Cold Boxes are insulated containers. As per the description of vaccine carrier and vaccine cold box submitted by the applicant as well as available on UNICEF website, the same do not merit for classification as instrument and appliances used in medical science. As such, the Vaccine carrier and vaccine cold box do not merit classification under chapter subheading 9089099.
As per note 1 (0 of the Chapter 90, parts of general use, as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base metal (Section XV) or similar goods of plastics (Chapter 39) are not covered in Chapter 90. As the Vaccine Carrier and Vaccine Cold Box being manufactured from HDPE and PUF are goods of plastics, the same is not covered in Chapter 90.
As per Rule 3a of the General Rules for interpretation of the first schedule (Import Tariff), the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to heading having more general description. According to Rule 3b of the Rules of interpretation, in case Rule 3a is not applicable, the goods shall be classified as if they consisted of the material/ raw material which give their essential character. In the applicant's case, the essential character of Vaccine Carrier and Vaccine Cold Box is insulated ware. As such, Vaccine Carrier and Vaccine Cold Box merit classification in chapter subheading 39231030.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1027 - ITAT INDORE
Exemption u/s 11 - payment of Income Tax as paid on deemed income u/s 11(3) for A.Y. 2013-14 to be allowed as a deduction or application of the income of the current year - CIT-A held AO was right in law in disallowing payment of income tax of ₹ 2,16,50,650/- paid on deemed income u/s 11(3) for A.Y. 2013-14 as application of income or deduction of the income of the current year - HELD THAT:- Referring to thoughtful consideration to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we do not see any infirmity into the order of Ld. CIT(A). As in the present case, it is not the case of the change of accounting system. The facts are distinguishable, therefore, no interference in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is called for. Thus, Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1026 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Rejection of claim of creditors - applicants entered into agreements with the Corporate Debtor or paid money to the Corporate Debtor for allotment of flats or not - Financial Creditors or not - HELD THAT:- Now, when the resolution plan was approved by the CoC on 30.08.2020, the RP says, perhaps having realized in case he remained as financial creditor in class, he would not get on par with independent financial creditors, the Applicant therefore changed his mind and has filed Form-C application on 03.09.2020, i.e., after plan was approved by the CoC.
For this Applicant himself filed Form-CA application and the same being admitted by the RP without any change, thereafter having this Applicant kept quiet for more than seven months, now he cannot subsequently, that too after plan was approved by the CoC, change his mind and ask alteration of his status as separate financial creditor - Application dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1025 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record it is found that the demand notice dated 27.06.2019 is issued by advocate Mr. Avneesh Garg on behalf of the operational creditor (page 26-35). The applicant has not put on record any document authorising Mr. Avneesh Garg, advocate to issue demand notice. Thus, the demand notice is issued by the advocate without any authority. Moreover, the demand notice is not supported by documents like copy of invoices etc. - On perusal of the records it is also found that the respondent has produced a copy of letter/email, raising a dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied by the applicant. From the above it is evident that much before issuance of demand notice dated 27.06.2019, there is/was a dispute between the parties regarding quality of the goods.
In the instant application, the material placed on record by both the parties clearly establish that there is/was dispute regarding quality of the goods supplied to the respondent by the Applicant. That apart, the advocate who has issued the demand notice is/was not authorised to issue the demand notice - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1024 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking rectification of mistake - omission to make certain additions in the judgment and order dated 15th October, 2020 passed by this Court disposing of the related Writ Petition - HELD THAT:- The scope of the present Interim Application is very limited i.e. whether while allowing the two Writ Petitions, certain portion of the prayer made by the Applicant as the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.3502 of 2020 got omitted and which is required to be added, nonetheless, we are of the view that since learned Addl. Solicitor General has submitted that Respondents are filing SLP within a day or two, hearing of this Interim Application may be deferred for a week.
Stand over to 3rd December, 2020 as was directed earlier.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1023 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI BENCH
Seeking approval of Resolution Plan - section 30(6) read with section 31(1) of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the applicant who is the resolution professional as well as the CoC wants to continue with the same valuer, i. e., GAA Advisory who is well aware of the facts of the case and has done valuation of the corporate debtor earlier. On the other hand, the Corporation Bank does not have faith on the CoC, the RP as well as the GAA Advisory and therefore, wants this Tribunal to appoint a fresh valuer for conducting the valuation process.
The Corporation Bank holds approximately only about 7 per cent. of the share in the CoC and has time and again raised objections which has resulted in delay in the process of CIRP. As mentioned by the resolution professional, the corporate debtor has already crossed 550 days of CIRP and is incurring huge expenditure.
With a view to expedite the process, as the GAA Advisors are already aware of the position of the corporate debtor, it is advisable to continue with the same valuer. Also, majority of the CoC, under its commercial wisdom has agreed for the appointment of GAA Advisory - Application allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1022 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL - CHENNAI SPECIAL BENCH
Seeking order directing the resolution professional to arrange to hand over vacant possession of the leased out premises to the applicant - direction for payment of the lease rental payment from the month of August, 2019 till the period when the properties under lease to the corporate debtor are handed over to the applicant - HELD THAT:- The respondent/IRP in the present case, has admitted the claim of the applicant towards the rental arrears for the period from April 1, 2014 till August 1, 2019 to the tune of ₹ 66,79,260. The applicant in the present application is seeking a direction from this Tribunal to direct the respondent to pay the rent for the CIRP period, during which the respondent is in possession of the premises. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to put forth an argument that the lease deed was not renewed and as such they are not liable to pay any rent to the applicant. The said argument of learned counsel for the respondent is not sustainable in view of the fact that the respondent herself has admitted the claim of the applicant to the tune of ₹ 66,79,260 for the period from April 1, 2014 till August 1, 2019 by relying on the same lease agreement entered into between the parties and as such for the purpose of defeating the claim of the applicant, the respondent cannot take a different stand. Thus the respondent cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time in relation to the said issue.
The corporate debtor itself has not paid the rental dues to the applicant since the month of June 2014. Even though the corporate debtor has not paid the rent from the month of June 2014, the respondent herself, as already stated, has admitted the rental arrears to the tune of ₹ 66,79,260 for the period from April 1, 2014 till August 1, 2019 and hence non-payment of the rent by the corporate debtor for the period from June 2014 would not absolve the respondent/RP to pay the rent for the CIRP period - this Tribunal is unable to comprehend as to how the respondent/RP who is in possession of the premises is not willing to pay the rent during the CIRP period.
The respondent/RP shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the land and building at Chennivakkam Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, to the applicant within 30 days starting from November 5, 2020 - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1021 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - whether the course adopted by the High Court to remand the matter to the trial court after more than 30 years to cure the defect which goes to the root of the trial, though permissible in law, is justified? - offences by companies - Section 141 of the NI Act - HELD THAT:- A three-Judge Bench of this Court in ANEETA HADA VERSUS GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS (P.) LTD. [2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] considered the question of conviction of the Directors in the absence of the Company in proceedings Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 For short, the NI Act as also in the proceedings under Information Technology Act, 2000. This Court held that Section 141 of the NI Act dealing with offences by companies contemplates that every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1020 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
As per Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member(T)
Seeking restoration of name of company in the ROC - Section 248 (5) of the Act and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of names of companies from the Register of the Companies) Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not given any cogent or convincing reason as to why the company was not in operation and the reasons provided by him about lack of electric supply and available manpower and poor market conditions are not convincing when we know that many other companies having similar businesses and production were functioning in the said time period. Moreover, the appellant failed to take any action to acquire the status of 'Dormant Company' by resorting to action under Section 455 of the Act. In addition, the company did not even care to file necessary balance sheets and annual returns for any of the financial years in question. The entire conduct of the directors of the company point to a situation that the company was not operational and the directors were not interested in running the company and take action as required under law.
There are no cogent reason preferred by the appellant that could be considered as providing 'just' ground for restoring the name of the company in the register of companies - it is succinctly clear that Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore has acted in pursuance of the provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013. He has complied with the procedural requirements as outlined in Section 248(1) of the Act and therefore his action of striking off the name of the Company M/s. Shri Laxmi Spinners Private Limited from the Register of Companies has full force of law. Moreover the appellant has not been able to make out a case in his favour as to why it would be 'just' to restore the name of his company in the register of companies in accordance with the provision of Section 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The decision of NCLT, Chennai Bench in dismissing the appeal is, therefore, correct.
As per Venugopal M. J
It is to be remembered that the right to seek restoration of a name of a company to the register of companies maintained by the 'Registrar of Companies' is not lost as long as 20 years have not expired. A 'Creditor' in Section 252 of the Companies Act ought to be construed widely so as to include a 'creditor' whose debt was contingent or prospective. In restoring a company to the register of companies, the court has no jurisdiction to impose any penalty for the defaults under the Act, but may order costs as a term of restoration - A dissolved company has no legal existence and, therefore, it cannot carry on business operations in accordance with the objects clause or Memorandum of Articles of Association. The effect of dissolution is that the certificate of incorporation issued to the Company is deemed to be cancelled from the date of dissolution.
In the instant case on hand, the reasons assigned by the Appellant that due to inadvertence and deficient professional advice the Company had not filed the 'Balance Sheets' and 'Annual Returns' for some time, the Consultant who was entrusted with the filing of 'Returns', had no knowledge of Company Law requirements and that there was no proper superintendence to ensure that the statutory filings were completed within the time period are not acceded to by this Tribunal.
The impugned order of the 'National Company Law Tribunal', Chennai Bench is set aside - application allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1019 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Maintainability of application - Initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - maintainability of simultaneous proceedings under SARFAESI Act and IBC - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The identical issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble NCLAT in the matter of RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS MAHESH BANSAL [2020 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] where it was held that The pendency of actions under the SARFAESI Act or actions under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not create obstruction for filling an Application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, specially in view of Section 238 of IBC.
Thus, it is now trite that pendency of actions under the SARFAESI Act by the Financial Creditor is not a bar for filling an Application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016, especially in view of Section 238 of IBC. Further, the proceedings under IBC, 2016 cannot be said to be a parallel proceedings since the Application under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 is filed to bring about a Resolution for the Corporate Debtor, on the other hand the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 is for recovery of the amount which is due and payable to the Financial Creditor.
Existence of debt and dispute or not - amount of default involved - HELD THAT:- There is a debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor is unable to repay its dues to the Financial Creditor - It is also seen that the present Application has been filed before this Tribunal on 17.06.2020 and as such the Notification issued by the Central Government in this regard by increasing threshold limit from ₹ 1 Lakh to ₹ 1 Crore would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the amount claimed to be in default is already more than ₹ 1 Crore.
It is also noted that the Central government by way of an amendment inserted in Section 10A of I&B Code, 2016 wherein the default in respect of the dues arising from the period 25.03.2020 till 25.09.2020, (now extended upto 25.12.2020) has been excluded and as such in the present case from Part-IV of the Application it is seen that the default has occurred much prior to 25.03.2020 and hence Section 10A of I&B Code, 2016 also would not come to the aid of the Corporate Debtor - this Application as filed by the Applicant-Financial Creditor is required to be admitted under Section 7 (5) of the I&B Code, 2016.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1018 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TP Adjustment - treating outstanding receivables from AEs as a separate international transaction and making adjustment by way of imputation of interest thereon - HELD THAT:- As outstanding receivables from AEs would constitute a separate international transaction on which imputation of interest is to be made by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points as under:-
a. In respect of invoices raised in earlier years by the assessee on its AEs, where the amounts were realized during the year under consideration but beyond the agreed credit period, imputation of interest is to be made from first day of April or from the expiry of the agreed credit period (i.e 30 days as accepted by ld DRP) whichever is later till the date of realization of debts.
b. In respect of invoices raised during the year on its AEs, where the amounts were realized during the year itself but beyond the agreed credit period, imputation of interest is to be made from the date of expiry of agreed credit period till the date of realization of debts.
Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2013-14 and 2014-15 with regard to transfer pricing adjustment made on account of imputation of interest on outstanding receivables from AEs are disposed off in the aforesaid manner.
Determination of ALP @5% of reimbursement from AE - Marking up@5% on the expenses being the travel cost of deputed employees paid on behalf of AE and recovered the same at cost from AEs as related to provision of services - HELD THAT:- We find that no arguments were advanced by the ld. AR with regard to these grounds. We find that the ld. DRP had dismissed this issue on the ground that assessee has not filed any details to demonstrate that these were mere reimbursements on cost to cost basis. Accordingly, the ld. DRP found it appropriate to direct the ld. TPO to apply mark up of 5% (as against 10% adopted by the ld. TPO) and recompute the adjustment. No efforts were taken by the assessee before us to improve its case beyond what was stated before ld. DRP with regard to this issue. Hence, we do not deem it fit to interfere with the directions of ld. DRP and consequentially in the final assessment order passed by the ld. AO pursuant to directions of ld. DRP in respect of this ground. Accordingly, the ground raised on mark up on reimbursements is hereby dismissed.
Direction of the ld. DRP to adopt mark-up of 10% on the reimbursement received by the assessee from AEs - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. TPO had adopted on adhoc basis of 10% mark-up on reimbursement from AEs which was reduced by the ld. DRP to 5%. We have already held in assessee‟s appeal in respect of this issue that assessee had not provided any further details to prove that the reimbursement from AE was done on cost to cost basis. In the absence of those details, there is nothing wrong in adopting mark-up on some reasonable basis. We find that mark-up of 5% adopted by the ld. DRP is reasonable in the facts and circumstances in the instant case and does not warrant any interference thereon. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1017 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Challenge to SCN before completion of enquiry and the proceedings - interference to SCN at pre-mature stage - HELD THAT:- As there is nothing which precludes the Petitioner from raising the contentions in this Writ Petition in the reply to be submitted to the Third Respondent, who is bound to deal with the same before coming to any ultimate conclusion, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere at this pre-mature stage of the matter.
It is incumbent upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation with all supporting documents and comply with the requirements as sought in the impugned order by 31.12.2020. The Third Respondent shall, after affording full opportunity of hearing, duly consider the explanation of the Petitioner, deal with the each of the contentions raised and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law and communicate decision taken under written acknowledgment.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 1016 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation against the petitioner is that he has conspired with the other accused and engaged them to commit murder - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is an influential person and he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. In view of the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to find out more facts. The learned State Public Prosecutor also referred to status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. From the status report, it is seen that A2, A11 and A13 surrendered and A3 to A10, A12 and A14 were arrested. In the status report, it is not stated whether the accused persons A.2 to A.14 are still in custody or they were released on bail.
The apprehension of the learned State Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor is that unless the petitioner is taken into custody and interrogated, he will tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses. It is seen that the petitioner is not apprehended for one year from date of occurrence and all other accused were released on bail. Considering the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions, as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate II, Hosur, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Hosur, Krishnagiri, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed - Bail application allowed.
........
|
