Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Prior attachment under PMLA had to be disclosed by parties appearing in response to the PBPT notice, and withholding that fact prevented them from later attacking the benami proceedings on the ground that there was no apprehension of alienation. The Tribunal held that, had the earlier attachment been disclosed, the Initiating Officer could have revoked the provisional attachment under section 24(3) and proceeded under the alternative attachment route in section 24(4)(b)(i). Because there was no material that the officer knew of the prior PMLA attachment, the challenge failed and the confirmed attachment under the PBPT Act was upheld; Maple Destination was distinguished as factually and statutorily different.
Prior attachment under PMLA had to be disclosed by parties appearing in response to the PBPT notice, and withholding that fact prevented them from later attacking the benami proceedings on the ground that there was no apprehension of alienation. The Tribunal held that, had the earlier attachment been disclosed, the Initiating Officer could have revoked the provisional attachment under section 24(3) and proceeded under the alternative attachment route in section 24(4)(b)(i). Because there was no material that the officer knew of the prior PMLA attachment, the challenge failed and the confirmed attachment under the PBPT Act was upheld; Maple Destination was distinguished as factually and statutorily different.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.