Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
The writ petition challenging notices u/ss 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including alleged arbitrary action for non-compliance with a letter of arrangement dated June 28, 2021, was filed after issuance of the Section 13(4) notice. The Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC held that writ petitions against proposed action u/s 13(4) are an abuse of process due to the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal u/s 17. The Supreme Court in Baghora Polylab held that a contract may be discharged by parties entering into a new contract or accepting modified obligations. Here, the respondent executed documents per the November 11, 2021 letter of arrangement, constituting a new contract substituting the original June 28, 2021 restructuring letter. Thus, the cause of action for specific performance of the June 28 letter no longer survives after accepting the November 11 letter. The High Court's direction to give effect to the June 28 letter was set aside.
The writ petition challenging notices u/ss 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, including alleged arbitrary action for non-compliance with a letter of arrangement dated June 28, 2021, was filed after issuance of the Section 13(4) notice. The Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC held that writ petitions against proposed action u/s 13(4) are an abuse of process due to the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal u/s 17. The Supreme Court in Baghora Polylab held that a contract may be discharged by parties entering into a new contract or accepting modified obligations. Here, the respondent executed documents per the November 11, 2021 letter of arrangement, constituting a new contract substituting the original June 28, 2021 restructuring letter. Thus, the cause of action for specific performance of the June 28 letter no longer survives after accepting the November 11 letter. The High Court's direction to give effect to the June 28 letter was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
