Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
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...
Section 29A(c) disqualification must be assessed on the date the resolution plan is submitted, and an earlier NPA-based default cannot be relied on once the relevant corporate debtor's CIRP has ended with approval of a resolution plan and change of management. The Supreme Court held that no dues in praesenti survived on that date, so the appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c); prior employment and later slump-sale acquisition were insufficient to attract the bar. It further held that Section 29A(j) is only derivative of a valid ineligibility under clauses (a) to (i), so the connected-person objection also failed. The appeals were allowed, the NCLAT orders were set aside, and the resolution plan was directed to be processed further.
Section 29A(c) disqualification must be assessed on the date the resolution plan is submitted, and an earlier NPA-based default cannot be relied on once the relevant corporate debtor's CIRP has ended with approval of a resolution plan and change of management. The Supreme Court held that no dues in praesenti survived on that date, so the appellant was not ineligible under Section 29A(c); prior employment and later slump-sale acquisition were insufficient to attract the bar. It further held that Section 29A(j) is only derivative of a valid ineligibility under clauses (a) to (i), so the connected-person objection also failed. The appeals were allowed, the NCLAT orders were set aside, and the resolution plan was directed to be processed further.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
