Latest news with #AppellateTribunal
Hans India
2 days ago
- Hans India
Orientation session on welfare of elderly held
Rajamahendravaram: District Revenue Officer (DRO) Seetarama Murthy clarified that children cannot appeal to the Collector against the decision of the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. He said only the parents have the right to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal headed by the district collector, while children must approach the civil court if they wish to challenge the order. He made these remarks while presiding over an orientation meeting held on Monday at the PGRS Hall in the Collectorate to raise awareness among district officials about the 2007 Act. Seetarama Murthy described the neglect of elderly parents by their children as an unfortunate and inhumane trend. He informed that under Section 7(1) of the Act, Tribunals are constituted at the divisional level and Appellate Tribunals at the district level. As per Section 4, parents or their representatives can apply for maintenance. He added that the Tribunal also has the power to take up cases suo motu. He further pointed out that under Section 24 of the Act, children who abandon their elderly parents can face imprisonment up to three months, a fine of Rs 5,000, or both. The Act also allows elderly parents to reclaim property previously transferred to their children if they are neglected. Assistant Director of Transgender and Elderly Welfare A.V. Srinivas, who also spoke at the session, said that though the Act was passed in 2007, its rules came into force in 2011. Several recognised old-age homes are functioning in East Godavari district, he noted. He mentioned that elderly parents who are unable to support themselves can claim up to Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance from their children. As per Section 21(2) of the Act, police are responsible for ensuring the safety of the lives and properties of senior citizens. They must also visit elderly persons every two months to assess their welfare, he added. Officials from various departments and staff from the Collectorate attendedthe meeting.
Deccan Herald
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
ITAT junks Congress' appeal against tax demand of Rs 199 crore
The Appellate Tribunal rejected the party's claim for tax exemption under Section 13A due to late return filing and violations of cash donation limits.
The Hindu
20-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Appellate Tribunal upholds ED's attachment of Chanda Kochhar's assets
The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has found a 'prima facie case' in the matter allegedly involving the former Chief Executive Officer of ICICI Bank Chanda Kochhar and others. In a recent order partially confirming the Enforcement Directorate's asset attachment, while hearing the agency's appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal observed: 'It may be true that the issue will be determined by the trial court but we find a prima facie case against the respondents for commission of the offence of money laundering and, therefore, the provisional attachment order is justified.' After considering the submissions of both the sides, the Tribunal said: '...we cause interference in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority other than for attachment of ₹10.50 lakhs not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is accordingly set aside other than for a sum of ₹10.5 lakhs attached by the appellant. The Provisional Attachment Order dated 10.01.2020 for the properties other than for ₹10.5 lakhs is confirmed'. The ED had challenged the order dated November 6, 2020, passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Its case is based on a first information report registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on January 22, 2019. As noted in the order, the allegation against the accused was about the criminal conspiracy, cheating, illegal gratification, criminal misconduct and abuse of official position by the public servant. It was for sanction of loan to Videocon Group of Companies in contravention of the Rules and policies of the ICICI Bank. The loan granted to the Videocon Group of Companies for a sum of ₹1,730 crores turned Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and resulted in wrongful loss to the ICICI Bank and purported wrongful gain to the borrowers and the accused persons.
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
As ED attaches Robert Vadra's properties, here is how the process works
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a chargesheet against businessman Robert Vadra, the brother-in-law of the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and the husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, in connection with a money laundering case over a land deal. An ED official said that after completing their investigation, a prosecution complaint was filed at the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi against 11 individuals or entities, including Robert Vadra's M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd. The court is yet to take cognisance of the prosecution complaint. 'Probe has revealed that the commercial license was also obtained by Robert Vadra on the land through his personal influence. A provisional attachment order was issued on July 16, 2025, in which 43 immovable properties amounting to Rs 37.64 crore pertaining to Robert Vadra and his entities M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and others have been attached,' the ED official said. How does the ED attach the properties of someone accused in a case, and what happens then? We explain. Provisional attachment According to Section 5 of PMLA, the Director of ED or any other officer (Deputy Director and above) authorised by him can issue orders for attachment of a property that is suspected to have been acquired with the proceeds of crime in a case of scheduled offence. The attachment order is issued if the Director feels that 'such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation of such proceeds of crime'. The order is valid for 180 days. If it is not confirmed by an ED-appointed Adjudicating Authority by then, the property is automatically released. Because the initial attachment is provisional, the accused can continue to enjoy the property until the Adjudicating Authority confirms the attachment — after which the ED has the power to claim possession. However, this is largely a procedural step, because there is hardly any attachment under PMLA that the Adjudicating Authority has refused to confirm so far. Notably, properties in foreign locations can be attached after a Letter Rogatory is sent through a competent court to the concerned country. The relevant authority in that country then attaches the property. After the confirmation The accused has the right to challenge the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order at the PMLA's Appellate Tribunal within 45 days. If the Appellate Tribunal too confirms the order, the accused can file a plea in the High Court, and so on. Unless the property is released along the way, it shall remain out of bounds for the owner until the trial is completed. Following final confirmation, in case of a residential property, the ED will ask the owner to vacate the premises along with his belongings, and will take over possession. In case of a conviction, the trial court may order confiscation of the attached property, and vest the rights to the property with the central government. Sitting and decaying Attached properties may remain locked for years, and start crumbling. There is a provision for a body to maintain such properties, but it has not been set up yet. Attached vehicles are sent to warehouses owned by the Central Warehousing Corporation, where the ED pays to park the vehicle. As cases drag on for years, the vehicles rot. At the end of the trial, neither the accused nor the ED recovers anything from the vehicle. The agency could, in fact, end up paying more rent than the value of the vehicle.
Time of India
24-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Parents can't be forced to shelter hostile son, daughter-in-law: HC
1 2 Nagpur: In an important judgment upholding the rights and dignity of elderly parents, the Aurangabad bench of Bombay high court recently ruled that a daughter-in-law has no legal right to continue living in her in-laws' self-owned house if they withdraw their permission and seek her eviction. The court observed that senior citizens cannot be compelled to tolerate the occupancy of their son and daughter-in-law in their home against their will, particularly when the relationship has turned acrimonious. Justice Prafulla Khubalkar, in a strongly worded judgment delivered on June 18, quashed an order passed by the district collector — who was acting as an Appellate Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — that set aside a 2019 eviction directive issued by the sub-divisional officer (SDO) in Nandurbar. The petitioners, 67-year-old Chandiram Hemnani and his 66-year-old wife Sushila, allowed their son and daughter-in-law to live in their self-acquired property. However, following a breakdown in relations, they approached authorities seeking their eviction. The SDO ruled in favour of the elderly couple and directed the younger pair to vacate the house. But the collector later reversed this decision, holding the issue to be a civil dispute, prompting the Hemnanis to approach the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo You Can Also Check: Nagpur AQI | Weather in Nagpur | Bank Holidays in Nagpur | Public Holidays in Nagpur Justice Khubalkar rejected the collector's view, stating it was 'grossly erroneous' and contrary to the intent of the Senior Citizens Act, which aims to ensure dignified living and protection of elderly persons. "The competing rights of the daughter-in-law cannot be granted at the cost of rights of the senior citizens to enjoy their own property independently," the court held. The bench pointed out that the daughter-in-law filed multiple legal proceedings, including divorce, domestic violence, and criminal complaints against her husband, further straining the relationship with her in-laws. "Directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for eviction of their daughter-in-law would be detrimental and would defeat the purpose of the enactment," justice Khubalkar noted. The judge held that since the house is neither ancestral nor jointly owned, and the parents are still alive and asserting their right to peaceful possession, the daughter-in-law has no enforceable right to remain. "Continued occupation despite opposition would amount to infringement of the parents' right to life with dignity," he stated. The court also noted the couple's non-compliance with the tribunal's earlier order directing them to pay Rs20,000 per month to the senior citizens. "This conduct on the part of the daughter-in-law is deprecated," the judge added, while ordering them to immediately pay the full arrears and bear the cost of the current litigation. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition filed by the Hemnanis, quashed the collector's order, and ordered the respondents to vacate the house within 30 days.
