Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Impleadment of the appellant bank as Proposed 2nd Respondent, in main Company Appeal - necessary/proper party - The Tribunal noted that the bank's interest was protected under pari passu charge and not an exclusive charge. It further highlighted that the bank had previously acquiesced to decisions made without its impleadment, demonstrating that its participation was not crucial for the resolution of the main appeal. - It was determined that the first respondent/appellant was not entitled to possession once the lease expired. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for a right to stay based on investment in the property, citing lack of a valid, enduring lease agreement beyond the explicitly stated term.
Impleadment of the appellant bank as Proposed 2nd Respondent, in main Company Appeal - necessary/proper party - The Tribunal noted that the bank's interest was protected under pari passu charge and not an exclusive charge. It further highlighted that the bank had previously acquiesced to decisions made without its impleadment, demonstrating that its participation was not crucial for the resolution of the main appeal. - It was determined that the first respondent/appellant was not entitled to possession once the lease expired. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for a right to stay based on investment in the property, citing lack of a valid, enduring lease agreement beyond the explicitly stated term.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
