Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Jurisdiction of NCLT - Constitution of its Benches - Competency of Member of the Tribunal to function as a Bench - The Court interprets Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and concludes that the proviso allows a single Judicial Member to exercise the powers of the Tribunal if authorized by the President. In this case, the President did authorize a Special Bench comprising of a single Member (Judicial) for specific dates, including the date of the judgment. - The Supreme Court finds that the NCLT did have jurisdiction to admit the application under Section 9 IBC 2016. - Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the CIRP proceedings were directed to continue as per the Code.
Jurisdiction of NCLT - Constitution of its Benches - Competency of Member of the Tribunal to function as a Bench - The Court interprets Section 419(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and concludes that the proviso allows a single Judicial Member to exercise the powers of the Tribunal if authorized by the President. In this case, the President did authorize a Special Bench comprising of a single Member (Judicial) for specific dates, including the date of the judgment. - The Supreme Court finds that the NCLT did have jurisdiction to admit the application under Section 9 IBC 2016. - Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the CIRP proceedings were directed to continue as per the Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.