Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, effective...
Interim moratorium exclusion applies retroactively to pending personal-guarantor insolvency applications, while securitisation restraints require written reasons and hearings.
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
Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, effective 26 May 2026, applies retroactively to pending applications under Sections 94 and 95, ending the interim moratorium for personal guarantors from that date. The pre-admission process is procedural, so no vested right arises in interim protection; retroactive operation addresses misuse of that protection. Interim orders in securitisation proceedings require contemporaneous written reasons addressing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Oral directions cannot support restoration of secured-asset possession. Restraints on auction completion or sale certificates without hearing auction purchasers breach natural justice; the restoration and auction restraints were set aside.
Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, effective 26 May 2026, applies retroactively to pending applications under Sections 94 and 95, ending the interim moratorium for personal guarantors from that date. The pre-admission process is procedural, so no vested right arises in interim protection; retroactive operation addresses misuse of that protection. Interim orders in securitisation proceedings require contemporaneous written reasons addressing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Oral directions cannot support restoration of secured-asset possession. Restraints on auction completion or sale certificates without hearing auction purchasers breach natural justice; the restoration and auction restraints were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
