Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan application by the Resolution Professional (RP) was improper due to non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority can only reject a Resolution Plan if it violates Section 30(2) with proper reasons and material. The lack of specific reasons for non-compliance in the impugned order led to setting aside the decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the application, allowing the RP to submit missing Minutes and Documents within two weeks to avoid further delays. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan application by the Resolution Professional (RP) was improper due to non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority can only reject a Resolution Plan if it violates Section 30(2) with proper reasons and material. The lack of specific reasons for non-compliance in the impugned order led to setting aside the decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the application, allowing the RP to submit missing Minutes and Documents within two weeks to avoid further delays. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
