Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
941 to 960 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A civil suit seeking a declaration that personal guarantees stood released remained maintainable because it was filed before any application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; Section 96 is triggered only on such filing, so a later interim moratorium could at most stay the pending suit for the limited statutory period and not bar it under Order VII Rule 11(d). The court also held that a declaratory suit to establish release from personal guarantees lies within civil jurisdiction, and Section 231 must be construed strictly so as not to oust jurisdiction beyond the Code's specific coverage. Rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable and the suit was remanded.
A civil suit seeking a declaration that personal guarantees stood released remained maintainable because it was filed before any application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; Section 96 is triggered only on such filing, so a later interim moratorium could at most stay the pending suit for the limited statutory period and not bar it under Order VII Rule 11(d). The court also held that a declaratory suit to establish release from personal guarantees lies within civil jurisdiction, and Section 231 must be construed strictly so as not to oust jurisdiction beyond the Code's specific coverage. Rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable and the suit was remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.