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...
The Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of a CoC-approved resolution plan cannot rest on a general perception of unfairness or material irregularity where the CIRP was conducted in accordance with the sole financial creditor's decisions and the Adjudicating Authority had not found statutory non-compliance or ineligibility. It also found no foundation for alleged informational asymmetry, because the Information Memorandum disclosed the mismatch in title documents and possession, access to the data room was available to all applicants, and bidding proceeded on an as is where is basis. The impugned rejection was set aside, the approval application was revived for fresh consideration, and the unsuccessful applicant's challenges were closed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of a CoC-approved resolution plan cannot rest on a general perception of unfairness or material irregularity where the CIRP was conducted in accordance with the sole financial creditor's decisions and the Adjudicating Authority had not found statutory non-compliance or ineligibility. It also found no foundation for alleged informational asymmetry, because the Information Memorandum disclosed the mismatch in title documents and possession, access to the data room was available to all applicants, and bidding proceeded on an as is where is basis. The impugned rejection was set aside, the approval application was revived for fresh consideration, and the unsuccessful applicant's challenges were closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.