Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT upheld recall of the loan facilities under the material adverse effect clause, holding that the lender could contractually form the opinion that the arrest of a personal guarantor and criminal investigation were likely to affect performance, so the recall was valid. It also held that the Section 7 applications were maintainable despite a pending challenge to the arbitral award and parallel execution, because the pleaded default began on failure to repay after recall and continued thereafter; insolvency proceedings are not barred merely because recovery steps were also taken. The tribunal further held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh limitation period, so the application filed within three years was not time-barred.
NCLAT upheld recall of the loan facilities under the material adverse effect clause, holding that the lender could contractually form the opinion that the arrest of a personal guarantor and criminal investigation were likely to affect performance, so the recall was valid. It also held that the Section 7 applications were maintainable despite a pending challenge to the arbitral award and parallel execution, because the pleaded default began on failure to repay after recall and continued thereafter; insolvency proceedings are not barred merely because recovery steps were also taken. The tribunal further held that the arbitral award gave rise to a fresh limitation period, so the application filed within three years was not time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.