Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Oppression and Mismanagement - Deletion of names of Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 from the array of the Respondents - Section 241, 242 and 243 of Companies Act - The Tribunal allowed the deletion of the respondents but imposed a token amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the order of stay. The Appellant contested this decision, arguing that the imposition of cost was unwarranted since the respondents were rightfully impleaded initially. However, the Appellate Tribunal upheld its decision, stating that the respondents were unnecessarily dragged into the litigation, causing them business losses and reputational harm. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Oppression and Mismanagement - Deletion of names of Respondent No. 4 to 8 and 13 from the array of the Respondents - Section 241, 242 and 243 of Companies Act - The Tribunal allowed the deletion of the respondents but imposed a token amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by them due to the order of stay. The Appellant contested this decision, arguing that the imposition of cost was unwarranted since the respondents were rightfully impleaded initially. However, the Appellate Tribunal upheld its decision, stating that the respondents were unnecessarily dragged into the litigation, causing them business losses and reputational harm. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
