Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
