Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
The Calcutta High Court found a violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing as required u/s 75(4) of the Act of 2017. Section 75(4) mandates a hearing when a request is made in writing or an adverse decision is contemplated. The court set aside the order and directed respondent no.1 to reconsider the show cause notice and reply after providing the petitioners with a hearing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Calcutta High Court found a violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing as required u/s 75(4) of the Act of 2017. Section 75(4) mandates a hearing when a request is made in writing or an adverse decision is contemplated. The court set aside the order and directed respondent no.1 to reconsider the show cause notice and reply after providing the petitioners with a hearing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.