TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Grants Exemption for Late Filing, Rejects Vague Land Protection Plea</h1> <h3>In Re: M/s. JVG FINANCE LTD. (IN PROV. LIQN.)</h3> The court allowed the exemption application for filing the affirmed affidavit and court fees within 72 hours. Regarding the directions sought by the ... Change of physical status of land - resume of possession of land - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that such a prayer cannot be granted at this stage, when there are no specific facts asserted on affidavit by the applicant as to when and by whom was the applicant informed about alleged construction activities on the subject land and the exact nature of such construction activities. Thus, there is no occasion for directing the Official Liquidator to file an affidavit to demonstrate that the physical condition of the subject land as was in existence in August, 2019 continues to be so on date. Application dismissed. Issues:1. Exemption application for filing affidavit and court fees2. Directions sought by the applicant regarding protection of land and physical statusExemption Application (C.A. No.199/2020):The court allowed the exemption application, subject to the petitioner filing the affirmed affidavit along with court fees within 72 hours of the court's regular functioning. The application was disposed of promptly.Directions Sought by Applicant (C.A. No.198/2020):The applicant, claiming ownership of specific lands, sought various reliefs, including directing the Official Liquidator to protect the subject lands and ensure no change in their physical status. The Official Liquidator had already engaged security agencies to safeguard the land, rendering further directions unnecessary. The applicant expressed concerns about potential construction activities on the land and requested the Official Liquidator to confirm the absence of such activities. However, the Official Liquidator had not received any reports of encroachment or construction on the land. The applicant's request to resume possession was deemed unnecessary as the land was already under the Official Liquidator's possession. The court rejected the applicant's plea, considering it vague and lacking specific details, dismissing the application as meritless. The court highlighted that the application seemed like a fishing expedition for future benefits, with vague prayers that could not be granted.This comprehensive analysis covers the exemption application and the directions sought by the applicant, detailing the court's decision and reasoning behind dismissing the application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
