Why Is It Important To Quash An FIR?

For many years the IRS has been demanding taxpayers with foreign financial accounts to be in compliance with the law. The FBAR is an informational return that was designed to fight the tax avoidance. The law requires a US person to file the FBAR if the US person has a financial interest or signature authority in a bank account located in a foreign country and the combined value of all foreign financial accounts is $10,000 or higher during any day of the calendar year. A US person is a US Citizen, US resident, US entity incorporated in the US and formed under the US law. Accordingly, the entities required to file the FBAR are corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, estates, and trusts. The financial accounts that must be reported in the FBAR are securities, brokerage, savings, demand, checking, deposit, time deposit, and other accounts maintained with a financial institution.

These extreme cases of judicial misconduct are rare; but when they happen they force us to think critically about our judicial system and the important role it plays in our society. When it comes to preventing abuses

The second part of the paper will review the arguments of crown and counsel while comparing them towards the judge’s decision. Counsel argued the accused the accused use of

The Magistrates Court discussed all the reasons of the authorised officer and made this opinion;

Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act are related to admissions and confessions. Sections 17 to 31 refers about admissions/confessions, and also, the admissibility and inadmissibility of admissions/confessions. An analysis of the above mentioned provisions reveals that an admission or a confession to be relevant must be related to a "fact in issue" or a "relevant fact". In that sense, Section 5 (and consequently Sections 6 to 16) of the Evidence Act are unavoidably interlaced with admissible admissions/confessions. It is, therefore, necessary to record here, that admissibility of admissions/confessions would be dependent on whether they would fall in the sphere of "facts in issue" or "relevant facts". That in turn is to be determined with reference

The question of whether a certain law is to be authorised by s51(vi) is a question that must be determined by the courts. The separation of powers as set out in the Constitution means that neither the legislature nor the executive can pre-empt the judicial function by purporting to determine the constitutional question in advance. Evidence of the beliefs and intentions of the legislature or executive may help to answer the

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

The Appellant asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed in its decision that is made by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the verdict to be overturned in his favour to be declared as void making the decision an error in

This appeal is a review of the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence seized from the appellant’s suitcase, and presents the following issues for review:

Issue 2 and 5: The Court noted that the exclusion of principles of natural justice (PNJ) is a well known concept and the legislature has the competence to enact such laws. Whether the exclusion of application of PNJ would vitiate the entire proceedings would depend upon the nature and facts of every case in the light of the Act or Rules and Regulation applicable to the case. The Court, then, read into various provisions of the Act and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 in order to determine the nature of functions of the Commission under various provisions. The Court found that at the face of it, the exercise of power u/s. 26(1) of the Act while forming prima facie opinion is inquisitorial and regulatory. It held that while forming prima facie opinion, the Commission does not condemn anyone. This function is not adjudicatory in nature but merely administrative. This function is in the nature of preparatory measures in contrast to the decision making process and hence

(b) If new and material evidence is submitted, the Appeals Council shall consider the additional evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. The Appeals Council shall evaluate the entire record including the new and material evidence submitted if it relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. It will then review the case if it finds that the administrative law judge 's action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.

The trial judge instructed the jury not to consider LM’s statements when deciding the appellant’s case. The appellant’s grounds for appeal to the High Court, were that these statements should have been considered.

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.

In the second part of the following essay I will be nominating one source of evidence that is present at the scene of a scenario. I will be discussing in my own words how Police should collate, handle and analyse the piece of evidence in a Criminal Investigation. In doing this I will be using relevant crime scene powers, NSWPF operational guidance and making reference to the Horswell (2004) reading.

If the judiciary are intentionally straying into matters of governmental policy then they as unelected, impartial adjudicators should only do so when cases arise that call for such action, potentially when governmental action threatens the rule of law – a right afforded to them as a constitutional check on governmental power. While the judiciary can be viewed as in a constant skirmish with the Legislature and the Executive much of the judiciary’s power to interoperate statutes liberally comes from powers delegated to it by parliament .