Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Interference with an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is confined to patent illegality, material irregularity, violation of mandatory law, or perversity, and a completed insolvency process cannot be reopened for mere dissatisfaction with claim treatment. The appellant's claim remained disputed and contingent throughout verification because of reciprocal contractual claims and counter-claims, so there was no admitted operational debt and no basis for invoking notice rights under Section 24(3)(c). Allegations of fraud, suppression, and procedural impropriety were unsupported, and the appellant showed no material prejudice affecting the resolution outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and the approved and implemented plan was left undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
