Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
« From the Courts »
 Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 & Others
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Order of a Four-Member Appellate Authority constituted under Chartered Accountants Act is Valid: Delhi HC
 Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court)
 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-op Society Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)

Stay on impeachment proceedings against Justice Dinakaran lifted
July, 05th 2011

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash some of the charges framed against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran by a Rajya Sabha-appointed panel looking into allegations of corrupt practices and misconduct against him.

A bench headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi, however, allowed Justice Dinakarans plea seeking removal of senior advocate P.P. Rao from the inquiry panel.

The bench asked Rajya Sabha chairman and Vice-President Hamid Ansari to reconstitute the panel by replacing Mr. Rao with another distinguished jurist.

The court, however, made it clear that Justice Dinakaran will be facing the same charges which were framed by the three-member committee comprising Supreme Court judge Justice Aftab Alam, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and senior advocate P.P. Rao.

Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari had in January 2010 constituted the three-member panel to examine the 12 charges framed in the notice of motion adopted by the House.

The apex court had on April 29 stayed the probe by the panel after Dinakaran expressed apprehension of a biased inquiry due to Mr. Raos presence in the panel and that the committee had exceeded its jurisdiction.

Justice Dinakaran had challenged the proceedings on the ground that the panel had framed additional charges and was also independently conducting investigations and collecting material against him which, according to the judge, was not permissible under law. He had also sought Mr. Raos recusal.

The charges against the judge include land grabbing, accumulation of unaccounted assets, passing judicial order for extraneous considerations, following which his elevation to the Supreme Court was also stalled.

Justice Dinakaran had contended that the panel has expanded the ambit of the probe beyond what was initially adopted by the Rajya Sabha motion.

Justice Dinakaran had also sought Raos removal on the ground that he was biased against him.

Senior counsel and former Additional Solicitor General Amrendra Saran, appearing for Justice Dinakaran, had pointed out that Mr. Rao was part of the resolution passed in November 2009 under the aegis of the Bar Association of India to ask erstwhile Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan against elevating Dinakaran, 61, to the apex court due to various charges of corruption and judicial misconduct against him.

Mr. Saran had also argued that Mr. Rao was part of the delegation which subsequently met the Chief Justice and made a representation opposing Dinakarans elevation.

The apex court had also rejected Mr. Sharans contention that the panel can neither conduct its own probe nor frame any additional charges as it is prohibited under Section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act.

How can you say that? Supposing someone fabricates documents and submits it to the Speaker or Chairman as the case may be. The members on the basis of the fabricated documents adopt the notice of motion. Should the committee not scrutinise the material? the bench had asked.

They are legally trained minds who can detect the fabricated material. In fact, it would offer protection to a judge also from baseless allegations, the bench had said.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
System Testing Solution Manual Software Testing Solutions Automation Software Testing Solutions System Workflow Testing System Manual Testing

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions