Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Necessary-party principles in oppression and mismanagement...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determination.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Necessary-party principles in oppression and mismanagement proceedings require impleadment only where an entity's presence is needed for effective adjudication. Independent businesses alleged to have benefited from diversion of company funds or business were not treated as necessary parties merely to support the petitioner's allegations, particularly where the principal allegations concerned an existing respondent. Deferral of the impleadment application for possible consideration at final hearing did not finally determine the dispute or adversely affect rights. The discussion states that an appeal against such deferral is not maintainable, while leaving impleadment open if later required for effective adjudication.
Necessary-party principles in oppression and mismanagement proceedings require impleadment only where an entity's presence is needed for effective adjudication. Independent businesses alleged to have benefited from diversion of company funds or business were not treated as necessary parties merely to support the petitioner's allegations, particularly where the principal allegations concerned an existing respondent. Deferral of the impleadment application for possible consideration at final hearing did not finally determine the dispute or adversely affect rights. The discussion states that an appeal against such deferral is not maintainable, while leaving impleadment open if later required for effective adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.