Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
A writ challenge to a show-cause notice was treated as premature because the notice only proposed action and the petitioner could still file objections in the statutory process; the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition, allowed a further reply to the corrigendum, and directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the CGST Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was vested with authority under the relevant rules, and a differing rubber-stamp description below the signature did not negate that competence. The jurisdictional objection was rejected.
A writ challenge to a show-cause notice was treated as premature because the notice only proposed action and the petitioner could still file objections in the statutory process; the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition, allowed a further reply to the corrigendum, and directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the CGST Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was vested with authority under the relevant rules, and a differing rubber-stamp description below the signature did not negate that competence. The jurisdictional objection was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.