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...
Appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator - The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to comply with Regulation 31A(11) by not submitting the mandatory written consent on Form AA of Schedule II before the Adjudicating Authority or the SCC. Despite the alleged consent dated 29.08.2023, there was no evidence of its submission to the relevant authorities. - The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator, citing the authority's power to replace the liquidator for justifiable reasons. - Agreeing with the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal as they were merely a proposed/prospective liquidator without inherent rights to the appointment.
Appointment of the Appellant as the liquidator - The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to comply with Regulation 31A(11) by not submitting the mandatory written consent on Form AA of Schedule II before the Adjudicating Authority or the SCC. Despite the alleged consent dated 29.08.2023, there was no evidence of its submission to the relevant authorities. - The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to appoint Respondent No. 2 as the liquidator, citing the authority's power to replace the liquidator for justifiable reasons. - Agreeing with the Respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellant lacked locus standi to file the appeal as they were merely a proposed/prospective liquidator without inherent rights to the appointment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
