financial fraud - The Legal Chamber

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...

Supreme Court Says Depositors First, Banks Later in NSEL Scam Case: MPID Act Overrides SARFAESI

The Supreme Court ruled that the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors (MPID) Act 1999 prevails over the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts Act 1993, denying secured creditors priority over assets attached under MPID. It also held that properties attached under MPID remain outside IBC moratorium, ensuring depositor claims take precedence over insolvency proceedings. The judgment reaffirms state legislative competence under List-II (State List) and upholds federalism by preventing central laws from overriding state-enacted investor protection measures. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the 2013 National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam, where around 13,000 investors lost approximately ₹5,600 crores due to payment defaults by trading members. NSEL, a commodit...