Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4021 to 4040 of 96176 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 95(4)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as a completeness requirement for personal guarantor insolvency applications, not a rigid jurisdictional bar. Where liability was admitted through guarantee deeds, compromise terms and earlier judicial proceedings, the Appellate Tribunal held that the statutory purpose of disclosing debt was already satisfied and no further elaborate narration was necessary. A procedural objection about inadequate particulars, raised for the first time in appeal, was rejected because it involved mixed questions of fact and law and had not been urged before the Adjudicating Authority. The admission of the section 95 applications was accordingly upheld.
Section 95(4)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as a completeness requirement for personal guarantor insolvency applications, not a rigid jurisdictional bar. Where liability was admitted through guarantee deeds, compromise terms and earlier judicial proceedings, the Appellate Tribunal held that the statutory purpose of disclosing debt was already satisfied and no further elaborate narration was necessary. A procedural objection about inadequate particulars, raised for the first time in appeal, was rejected because it involved mixed questions of fact and law and had not been urged before the Adjudicating Authority. The admission of the section 95 applications was accordingly upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
