Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
