Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1521 to 1540 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
