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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6041 to 6060 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
On approval of a resolution plan, Section 32A of the IBC protects the corporate debtor on a clean slate basis, so attachment of its property for prior offences cannot continue and the impugned MPID notification was liable to be quashed to that extent. The HC also held that vesting under the MPID Act remains inchoate until the Designated Court makes the attachment absolute; absent such an order, the property had not finally vested in the Competent Authority and remained available to the resolution plan. The writ was maintainable because the issue was a pure question of law, despite the alternative forum.
On approval of a resolution plan, Section 32A of the IBC protects the corporate debtor on a clean slate basis, so attachment of its property for prior offences cannot continue and the impugned MPID notification was liable to be quashed to that extent. The HC also held that vesting under the MPID Act remains inchoate until the Designated Court makes the attachment absolute; absent such an order, the property had not finally vested in the Competent Authority and remained available to the resolution plan. The writ was maintainable because the issue was a pure question of law, despite the alternative forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.