Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
