Issues: Whether imposition of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified where the e-way bills had expired and their validity was not extended under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Section 129 permits demand of tax and penalty for contraventions during transportation, while Rule 138(10) prescribes the validity period of an e-way bill. Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST distinguishes serious and substantive contraventions from minor or procedural lapses. The consignment was accompanied by invoices, lorry receipt, e-way bills and a test certificate; the invoices charged integrated tax and physical verification disclosed no discrepancy in the goods. Expiry of the e-way bills was the sole defect, and no tax evasion or intention to evade tax was established. The explanation for the incorrect destination entry and consequential validity period was relevant while deciding whether Section 129 could be invoked.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the expired e-way bills was invalid and unjustified; the levy of integrated tax and penalty was set aside.

Issues: Whether statutory interest consequential to confiscation and redemption of imported goods may be computed from the original assessment of the Bill of Entry when the liability arising from the confiscation proceedings was determined only by a subsequent adjudication order.

Analysis: Under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the obligation to pay duty and charges consequent upon redemption arises in the context of exercise and acceptance of the redemption option. The resulting duty liability is required to be assessed and determined through the machinery of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, after which statutory interest may apply in accordance with law. The original assessment was based on the declared description of the goods, whereas the goods were seized and the description, classification, confiscation consequences, redemption fine, penalties and duty consequences were determined only through the adjudication order dated 28.02.2023. Delay in adjudication does not by itself extinguish statutory interest; however, a liability that had not yet been determined cannot be treated as an amount in delayed payment for the preceding period.

Conclusion: Interest could not be computed for the period from the original assessment in May 2015 until 28.02.2023. The interest liability must be recomputed from the date of determination under the adjudication order, after accounting for the subsequent reassessment and payments or appropriations already made; interest for the subsequent period remains payable if attracted under the applicable law.

Issues: Whether penalty upon a director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable where the imported goods were not available for confiscation or imposition of redemption fine, and the duty demand against the importer arising from the same order had already been set aside.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 112(a) requires an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Although the adjudication order recorded that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m), no redemption fine under Section 125 was imposed because the goods were not physically available. The duty demand and penalties against the importer, founded on the same reclassification, had also been set aside in the importer's appeal. These circumstances left no legal basis for fastening penal liability upon the director.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed upon the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether AED (GSI) credit paid on unprocessed nylon tyre cord fabric could be availed and utilised towards basic excise duty where the intermediate TCWS was exempt from AED (GSI) and tyres were not chargeable to AED (GSI); (ii) Whether refund of AED (GSI) credit was available for inputs used in exported tyres.

Issue (i): Whether AED (GSI) credit paid on unprocessed nylon tyre cord fabric could be availed and utilised towards basic excise duty where the intermediate TCWS was exempt from AED (GSI) and tyres were not chargeable to AED (GSI).

Analysis: Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 denied credit on inputs used in manufacture of exempt or nil-rated final products. The second proviso to Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.1994 confined AED (GSI) credit to payment of excise duty leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, on final products. TCWS was exempt from AED (GSI), while tyres were not chargeable to AED (GSI); consequently, no dutiable final product under that enactment existed against which the credit could be utilised. The subsequent CENVAT amendment and circular could not apply to the 1998-99 period. The retrospective amendment under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 2004 applied only to AED (GSI) paid on or after 1 April 2000.

Conclusion: The assessee was not eligible to avail or utilise AED (GSI) credit towards basic excise duty. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of AED (GSI) credit was available for inputs used in exported tyres.

Analysis: Refund under Rule 57F(13) depended upon valid entitlement to the underlying AED (GSI) credit. Since the credit itself was unavailable under Rule 57C and Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.1994, export of the tyres did not create entitlement to refund of that credit.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to refund of the disputed AED (GSI) credit. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: AED (GSI) credit under the MODVAT regime could be used only against liability under the same additional-excise-duty enactment; later CENVAT provisions did not alter the position for the earlier disputed period.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit of a specified additional excise duty is unavailable where no final product is liable to that duty, and cannot be diverted towards payment of a different excise duty unless the governing credit scheme expressly permits it.

Issues: (i) Whether a final assessment order that inadvertently omitted effect to DRP directions could be rectified under Section 154; (ii) Whether the Indian subsidiary constituted a permanent establishment of the assessee in India and whether business profits were attributable to it; (iii) Whether back-to-back reimbursements of expenses without mark-up were taxable as fees for included services; (iv) Whether the arm's length price of corporate guarantee commission could be fixed without evaluating the assessee's benchmarking.

Issue (i): Whether a final assessment order that inadvertently omitted effect to DRP directions could be rectified under Section 154.

Analysis: Section 144C(10) and Section 144C(13) require the Assessing Officer to comply with binding DRP directions while passing the final assessment order. Neither Section 144C nor Section 154 restricts rectification of a patent and obvious error in such an order. The directions had been reproduced in the assessment order, but their effect was inadvertently omitted from the computation; the error was therefore a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The rectification was also made within the limitation prescribed by Section 154(7).

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the final assessment order was validly rectified under Section 154 and was not rendered void for the inadvertent omission to implement the DRP directions.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian subsidiary constituted a permanent establishment of the assessee in India and whether business profits were attributable to it.

Analysis: Under Article 5 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, the existence of a permanent establishment was not established on the facts. The issue had consistently been decided for the assessee in earlier assessment years on identical facts, and no distinguishing factual circumstance was identified for the relevant year. In the absence of a permanent establishment, no business profits could be attributed to India.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the Indian subsidiary was not a permanent establishment, and the addition of business profits attributed to it was directed to be deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether back-to-back reimbursements of expenses without mark-up were taxable as fees for included services.

Analysis: The evidence and remand report established that the assessee acted only as an intermediary between the service providers and its Indian associated enterprise, receiving reimbursement equal to the amounts paid, without profit or mark-up. Further, Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement requires technical knowledge, skill, know-how, process, plan, or design to be made available so that the recipient can independently apply it. Neither the nature of qualifying technical or consultancy services nor satisfaction of the make available test was established.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the reimbursements were not taxable as fees for included services, and the addition was directed to be deleted.

Issue (iv): Whether the arm's length price of corporate guarantee commission could be fixed without evaluating the assessee's benchmarking.

Analysis: The assessee had benchmarked the corporate-guarantee transaction in its transfer-pricing study, but the benchmarking was not evaluated. Fixing the commission rate on an estimated basis without examining the relevant facts and the assessee's benchmarking was not sustainable.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the corporate-guarantee arm's length price issue was restored for fresh adjudication after examining the assessee's benchmarking.

Final Conclusion: The permanent-establishment and fees-for-included-services additions do not survive; the corporate-guarantee adjustment requires fresh determination, while the challenge to rectification of the assessment order fails.

Issues: (i) Whether scholarships remitted in India in Indian currency to Indian students pursuing education abroad constitute an application of income outside India or activity beyond the trust's charitable objects? (ii) Whether the CIT(E) may deny registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G by examining alleged violations of sections 11(1)(c) and 13(1)(c)?

Issue (i): Whether scholarships remitted in India in Indian currency to Indian students pursuing education abroad constitute an application of income outside India or activity beyond the trust's charitable objects?

Analysis: Section 11(1)(c) concerns income applied for purposes outside India. The scholarships were paid through Indian banks in Indian currency to Indian students, with no payment remitted to a foreign university or institution. A student's subsequent use of the scholarship for education abroad does not convert the domestic disbursement into an overseas application of income. The educational scholarships fell within the stated charitable objects, had been accepted under earlier registrations, and no material showed that the activity was non-genuine or outside those objects.

Conclusion: Scholarships paid in India to Indian students for overseas education do not violate section 11(1)(c) and remain charitable educational activity within the trust's objects. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the CIT(E) may deny registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G by examining alleged violations of sections 11(1)(c) and 13(1)(c)?

Analysis: The inquiry at the registration stage is confined to the charitable objects, genuineness of activities, and compliance with laws material to achieving those objects. Questions concerning application or alleged misapplication of income, including benefits to specified persons under section 13(1)(c), concern computation of exemption and are to be examined in assessment proceedings. No material established that the trust's activities were non-genuine or that its objects were non-charitable. The prior grant of registration on the same objects and activities also supported continuity.

Conclusion: Alleged violations of sections 11(1)(c) and 13(1)(c) cannot be used at the registration stage to deny registration under section 12AB or consequential approval under section 80G. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of charitable registration and consequential donor-benefit approval was unsustainable; registration and consequential approval are required to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: At the registration stage, the authority's inquiry is confined to the charitable objects and genuineness of activities; domestic scholarship payments to Indian students do not become an application of income outside India merely because the students pursue education abroad.

Issues: Whether the detained personal jewellery could be returned to the petitioners for re-export to Saudi Arabia.

Analysis: The jewellery was stated to be personal jewellery intended to be taken back to Saudi Arabia and not sold in India. The order directed adjudication of a representation or application seeking its return, while contemplating a minor penalty for the customs infraction upon the petitioners' consent. No final adjudication on return of the jewellery was made.

Outcome: The petitioners were permitted to submit a representation or application for adjudication of return of the seized jewellery.

Outcome: The company appeal was allowed by consent and the impugned order was quashed.

Issues: Whether outstanding Central Sales Tax dues could be treated as secured debt, and the State Tax Department as a secured creditor, by reading Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is a machinery provision enabling State authorities to assess, collect and recover Central Sales Tax by using the procedural machinery of the applicable State sales-tax law. It does not create a statutory first charge over the dealer's property or impliedly incorporate the substantive first charge under Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. A security interest cannot arise merely from the recovery machinery under Section 9(2).

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 3(31) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is clarificatory and operates retrospectively; it excludes a security interest created merely by operation of law unless it arises from an agreement or arrangement between parties. The absence of any contractual security interest independently precludes secured status for the Central Sales Tax claim.

Conclusion: The admitted Central Sales Tax dues cannot be treated as secured debt, and the State Tax Department cannot claim the status of a secured creditor or priority under Section 53(1)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed; all relevant issues and contentions were left open for trial.

Issues: (i) Whether the service-tax demand based on the departmental computation of the assessee's sales turnover was sustainable; (ii) Whether the threshold exemption was available for the residual taxable-service receipts of Rs. 9,32,999.

Issue (i): Whether the service-tax demand based on the departmental computation of the assessee's sales turnover was sustainable.

Analysis: The acknowledged VAT audit report in Form E-704 recorded sales turnover of Rs. 1,16,70,673 and payment of VAT attributable to those transactions. The lower authorities adopted a substantially lower sales figure of Rs. 85,89,993 without referring to documentary material supporting that computation. The service-tax demand resulting from the assumed taxable-service component was therefore unsupported by adequate evidence.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand founded on the unsubstantiated turnover computation is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the threshold exemption was available for the residual taxable-service receipts of Rs. 9,32,999.

Analysis: Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 exempted taxable services within the threshold limit of Rs. 10 lakh from service tax leviable under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. The residual receipts identified as taxable-service income were Rs. 9,32,999 and fell within that limit.

Conclusion: The threshold exemption is available for the taxable-service receipts of Rs. 9,32,999, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjudged service-tax liability lacks a sustainable basis, and no service tax is payable on the residual receipts within the notified threshold.

Issues: Whether the maximum packing speed of a pan masala packing machine could be reduced through alterations to the machine for determining duty liability when the same goods continued to be packed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the number of packing machines and the maximum packing speed at which they can be operated as relevant factors for capacity determination, deemed production and duty. A fresh declaration may be filed upon subsequent changes, but the permissible changes do not authorise reduction of the maximum speed of a machine by alteration when packing the same goods at the same retail sale price. The records established that the machine had operated at 1000 pouches per minute and fell within the category of 751 pouches per minute and above; altered actual operating speed or a claimed reduction in speed could not displace that maximum-speed category.

Conclusion: The reduced speed declaration was not admissible. The machine was correctly classifiable in the category of 751 pouches per minute and above, with duty payable on that basis, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether modifications and body-building undertaken on fully built motor vehicles amount to manufacture or result in excisable goods, and whether exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 is consequently available. (ii) Whether the extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Section 11AC of that Act are invocable. (iii) Whether individual penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether modifications and body-building undertaken on fully built motor vehicles amount to manufacture or result in excisable goods, and whether exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 is consequently available.

Analysis: Central excise duty is chargeable on goods in the form in which they are cleared. Modification of an already fully built vehicle or addition of value does not, by itself, establish manufacture. Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 require a determination whether the processes undertaken constitute manufacture, including whether they amount to building a body on a chassis falling under heading 8706. Classification and exemption liability cannot be resolved without this foundational determination.

Conclusion: The question of manufacture or excisability and the consequential eligibility for exemption requires fresh determination.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty under Section 11AC of that Act are invocable.

Analysis: The assessee was registered, regularly filed statutory returns, disclosed its clearances and exemption claim, and was subjected to departmental scrutiny and audits. Section 11A extended limitation and Section 11AC penalty require fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Mere non-payment, a mistaken legal position, or a subsequent change in the departmental view does not establish a positive and deliberate act of suppression.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 11AC are not invocable, in favour of the assessee; any duty determination is confined to the normal period of limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether individual penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable.

Analysis: Personal penalty under Rule 26 requires material showing the requisite knowledge and involvement in dealing with goods liable to confiscation. In the absence of fraud, collusion, wilful suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty, the record does not establish the basis for personal penal liability.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 26 is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Only a duty liability determined within the normal limitation period, after determining manufacture and exemption eligibility, may survive; the penal consequences founded on intentional evasion cannot be sustained on the present record.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation and penalty for evasion apply only upon proof of a positive and deliberate act amounting to wilful suppression or other statutory deception with intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether the order determining transfer-pricing matters was sustainable despite the absence of a personal hearing and adequate reasons.

Analysis: An order under Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must reflect due consideration of the assessee's contentions and contain reasons supporting the determination. Although written replies had been considered, the impugned order did not record the contentions or reasons and did not show that a personal hearing had been afforded.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and is required to be redetermined through a reasoned order after affording the assessee a personal hearing in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether employee recoveries for subsidised mandatory canteen facilities amount to a taxable supply. (ii) Whether input tax credit on canteen services is available and, if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether employee recoveries for subsidised mandatory canteen facilities amount to a taxable supply.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires a supply for consideration in the course or furtherance of business. The canteen facilities at the factory and research facility were obligatory under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, while the corporate-office canteen was obligatory under Section 23 of the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2019. The facilities were governed by the employer's canteen policy and the employee deductions represented subsidised meal charges. Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST treats employment perquisites provided under the employer-employee arrangement as outside GST.

Conclusion: The recoveries from employees towards canteen facilities are not a supply and do not attract GST. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit on canteen services is available and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 17(5)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as clarified by Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST, applies to the whole of clause (b) and permits input tax credit where provision of the relevant facility is obligatory under law. Since the canteen facilities were statutorily mandatory, the blocked-credit restriction did not apply to the employer's cost. Credit attributable to the portion of canteen cost recovered from employees remains unavailable.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on canteen services is admissible only to the extent of the cost borne by the assessee; proportionate credit embedded in the amounts recovered from employees is disallowed. The issue is partly decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Statutorily mandated subsidised canteen facilities provided as part of the employment arrangement fall outside taxable supply, while the associated credit entitlement is confined to the employer-funded portion of the facility.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employer provides a statutorily mandatory canteen under an employment arrangement, employee recoveries do not constitute taxable supply, and input tax credit is available only for the cost borne by the employer.

Issues: (i) Whether preferential-duty exemption could be denied by treating the certificates of origin as non-genuine without certificate-specific retroactive verification or supporting evidence; (ii) Whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained when the imported goods were unavailable for confiscation and had been cleared without a bond or undertaking.

Issue (i): Whether preferential-duty exemption could be denied by treating the certificates of origin as non-genuine without certificate-specific retroactive verification or supporting evidence.

Analysis: The Malaysian verification e-mail referred to a certificate number different from the appellant's certificate, and no enquiry or evidence was produced concerning the second Malaysian certificate. For the Thai imports, the retroactive-verification material did not concern the appellant's certificates. Verification findings concerning certificates of other importers could not be mechanically extended to the appellant's separately issued certificates. The material did not establish that the certificates furnished at import were invalid or non-genuine.

Conclusion: Denial of the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, and the consequential differential duty, interest, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained when the imported goods were unavailable for confiscation and had been cleared without a bond or undertaking.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly unavailable for confiscation and were not released against a bond or undertaking. Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is not imposable in those circumstances.

Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The preferential tariff claims remained valid, and the consequential fiscal and confiscatory liabilities failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Preferential-duty exemption based on a certificate of origin cannot be denied without reliable, certificate-specific evidence establishing that the certificate is invalid or non-genuine.

Issues: (i) Eligibility of the imported electronic paver finishers for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012; (ii) validity of invoking the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty; (iii) sustainability of personal penalty on the director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Eligibility of the imported electronic paver finishers for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Customs dated 17.03.2012.

Analysis: The notification extended exemption to an electronic paver finisher with sensor device for laying bituminous pavement of 7 metres and above. The proforma invoice did not disclose that accessories or bolt-on extensions were supplied with the machine. The imported machine, as verified, had a basic paving width capable of extension only up to 5 metres through its hydraulic system, while no additional bolt-on extension was connected. Exemption notifications require strict construction, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing compliance with the prescribed conditions. Optional external extensions could not be treated as enlarging the machine's capability for the exemption when the notification did not provide for such treatment.

Conclusion: The imported paver finishers were not eligible for the exemption. The finding is in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Validity of invoking the extended period of limitation for recovery of duty.

Analysis: The bill of entry did not specifically disclose the machine's paving capability or the need for external additions to attain a greater paving width. This omission amounted to misdeclaration of material particulars relevant to the exemption claim.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid. The finding is in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Sustainability of personal penalty on the director under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Neither the allegations nor the adjudication identified a specific act or omission of the director that caused the misdeclaration. Individual culpability necessary for personal penalty was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The personal penalty imposed on the director was unsustainable and was deleted. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and allied consequences against the importing company remain enforceable, while the director incurs no personal penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility under a strictly construed customs exemption depends on the capability and characteristics of the goods in their imported condition; optional external extensions cannot satisfy an unstated notification requirement.

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of the oppression and mismanagement petition without specific findings on material allegations could be sustained; (ii) Whether the perjury/misrepresentation application could be allowed without precise findings and a meaningful opportunity to answer; (iii) Whether the appellants could be denied equitable relief for lack of clean hands on the existing record.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the oppression and mismanagement petition without specific findings on material allegations could be sustained.

Analysis: Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 require an adjudicating authority to assess allegations concerning the affairs of a company on the material placed before it. The impugned order did not return adequate findings on the proposed transfer of intellectual property and business assets, dilution of the company's interest in the new entity, conversion of disputed debt into equity, valuation, allotment, and the alleged continuing oppressive conduct. A commercial explanation for the restructuring could not substitute for an evaluation of the contrary material and the cumulative effect of the challenged transactions. The record disclosed a prima facie case requiring reasoned, issue-specific determination, without deciding the merits of oppression and mismanagement.

Conclusion: The dismissal could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the perjury/misrepresentation application could be allowed without precise findings and a meaningful opportunity to answer.

Analysis: An adverse determination carrying civil or penal consequences requires identification of the precise allegedly false statement, the supporting material, the basis for finding intentional falsity, and compliance with the applicable requirements for further action. The impugned order allowed the application omnibusly without such reasoned determination. The material also did not establish that the affected parties had been afforded a meaningful opportunity to answer the specific allegations. The principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, therefore were not adequately satisfied.

Conclusion: The allowance of the perjury/misrepresentation application could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the parties against whom the adverse findings had been made.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants could be denied equitable relief for lack of clean hands on the existing record.

Analysis: The alleged understanding to defer the general meeting and the dissent concerning the meeting proceedings depended on contemporaneous correspondence, minutes, transcripts, and dissent notes capable of more than one interpretation. The discrepancies in those materials did not, without complete analysis and clear findings of deliberate falsehood, establish that the appellants had intentionally misrepresented facts. Application of the clean hands doctrine to deny equitable relief required clear and cogent findings supported by the record.

Conclusion: The appellants could not be denied equitable relief on the existing record; the issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The challenged adverse determinations on oppression, perjury, and lack of candour no longer bind the parties, while preservation of the disputed corporate position safeguards the subject matter until the merits are determined.

Ratio Decidendi: A reasoned determination on material allegations and a meaningful opportunity to meet precise adverse allegations are indispensable before an oppression petition may be dismissed or perjury-related consequences imposed.

Issues: Whether interim status quo and stay protection should be granted pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The subsisting restraint order of the Civil Court was noted, as were the competing interests asserted in the property and the pending applications for intervention and impleadment. No sufficient ground was found at this stage for further interim directions or a stay.

Outcome: Interim directions and stay were declined; objections and rejoinder were directed, and the application was listed with the appeal.

Issues: Whether a delayed restoration application seeking recall of dismissal for non-prosecution could be entertained where the default resulted from counsel's deliberate non-appearance and the party could not obtain consent to engage replacement counsel.

Analysis: Rule 48(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 prescribes a 30-day period for restoration but does not expressly bar consideration beyond that period. Section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permits application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings, including interlocutory restoration proceedings, and thereby attracts Section 5 where sufficient cause is established. The continuing authority under the existing vakalatnama, read with Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India Rules and Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, created a genuine impediment to engaging replacement counsel without consent or leave. A litigant who had entrusted the matter to counsel could not be penalised for counsel's deliberate non-appearance and refusal to facilitate substitution.

Conclusion: The delay in seeking restoration was capable of condonation on the facts shown, and the restoration request could not be rejected solely for being filed beyond 30 days; the dismissed claim is to be considered on merits.