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...
Forfeiture of earnest money in an e-auction required fresh consideration under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the statutory requirements governing contractual forfeiture, including the necessity and quantum of loss, had not been raised or examined. The applicable e-auction terms also required determination of whether the forfeitable amount was 25% or 10% of the successful bid. The High Court set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remitted that issue to the Company Judge after completion of pleadings, leaving the merits of forfeiture open.
Forfeiture of earnest money in an e-auction required fresh consideration under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act because the statutory requirements governing contractual forfeiture, including the necessity and quantum of loss, had not been raised or examined. The applicable e-auction terms also required determination of whether the forfeitable amount was 25% or 10% of the successful bid. The High Court set aside the rejection of the refund claim and remitted that issue to the Company Judge after completion of pleadings, leaving the merits of forfeiture open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
