Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 of 95752 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Proceedings initiated, continued and concluded against an amalgamating company after it ceased to exist are unsustainable. Although liabilities, existing claims and pending proceedings devolve on the transferee under an amalgamation scheme, post-amalgamation proceedings concerning earlier liabilities must be instituted against the successor company. Reference to, knowledge of, or participation by the successor does not cure proceedings conducted in the name of the non-existent entity, particularly where the order does not address the disclosed amalgamation. The successor has locus to challenge such proceedings because any resulting liability may be fastened upon it. The HC quashed the show cause notice and adjudication order, while leaving merits open and permitting fresh lawful proceedings against the successor.
Proceedings initiated, continued and concluded against an amalgamating company after it ceased to exist are unsustainable. Although liabilities, existing claims and pending proceedings devolve on the transferee under an amalgamation scheme, post-amalgamation proceedings concerning earlier liabilities must be instituted against the successor company. Reference to, knowledge of, or participation by the successor does not cure proceedings conducted in the name of the non-existent entity, particularly where the order does not address the disclosed amalgamation. The successor has locus to challenge such proceedings because any resulting liability may be fastened upon it. The HC quashed the show cause notice and adjudication order, while leaving merits open and permitting fresh lawful proceedings against the successor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.