Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A repeated Section 94 application by a personal guarantor was held not maintainable after an earlier fresh petition had already been dismissed on merits as time-barred. The tribunal treated the later filing as an identical attempt, noting suppression of the intervening dismissal and a pattern of repeated petitions aimed at securing interim moratorium and delaying recovery. It also rejected the argument that limitation began only from the possession notice, because a separate demand notice had already been issued to the guarantor earlier; the limitation finding based on that earlier notice was upheld. On these facts, the subsequent petition was held barred by res judicata, the abuse of process was found serious, and costs were imposed.
A repeated Section 94 application by a personal guarantor was held not maintainable after an earlier fresh petition had already been dismissed on merits as time-barred. The tribunal treated the later filing as an identical attempt, noting suppression of the intervening dismissal and a pattern of repeated petitions aimed at securing interim moratorium and delaying recovery. It also rejected the argument that limitation began only from the possession notice, because a separate demand notice had already been issued to the guarantor earlier; the limitation finding based on that earlier notice was upheld. On these facts, the subsequent petition was held barred by res judicata, the abuse of process was found serious, and costs were imposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.