Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CIRP - denial of rights to be heard to protect the Financial Interest of Hundreds of Home Buyers / Allottees - Applicability of Threshold - joint filing by either 100 allottees or 10% of the total number of allottees of the same real estate project, whichever is less - The Tribunal noted that the appellant and co-petitioners, representing various projects within the township, did not meet the specified threshold for initiating CIRP, as they did not collectively belong to the same real estate project or phase. - The NCLAT concluded that the appeal lacks merit based on the presented arguments and evidence. It was determined that the application for initiating CIRP was not maintainable in law, affirming the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.
CIRP - denial of rights to be heard to protect the Financial Interest of Hundreds of Home Buyers / Allottees - Applicability of Threshold - joint filing by either 100 allottees or 10% of the total number of allottees of the same real estate project, whichever is less - The Tribunal noted that the appellant and co-petitioners, representing various projects within the township, did not meet the specified threshold for initiating CIRP, as they did not collectively belong to the same real estate project or phase. - The NCLAT concluded that the appeal lacks merit based on the presented arguments and evidence. It was determined that the application for initiating CIRP was not maintainable in law, affirming the decision of the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.