Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 1, 2024Case LawsHC
Plaintiff contended defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending suit claim. Court held limitation issue raised by defendants requires further examination and cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application as plea cannot be held moonshine. First defendant defaulted on Rs.70,00,000 payment to plaintiff under Memorandum of Compromise. Cheque issued by first defendant got dishonoured. Plaintiff contends no necessity to withdraw suit per Memorandum since right to restore suit on breach. Defendants 2 to 4, being directors of first defendant company, not parties to contracts including construction contract and Memorandum of Compromise. Their liability can be adjudicated only after trial. First defendant made out probable case for defending suit on ground of limitation as amendment applications filed beyond three years from Memorandum date. Court directed first defendant to deposit Rs.70,00,000 within two weeks, failing which summary judgment for the amount in plaintiff's favour. Application against defendants 2 to 4 dismissed as suit claim against them to be adjudicated after trial.
Plaintiff contended defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending suit claim. Court held limitation issue raised by defendants requires further examination and cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application as plea cannot be held moonshine. First defendant defaulted on Rs.70,00,000 payment to plaintiff under Memorandum of Compromise. Cheque issued by first defendant got dishonoured. Plaintiff contends no necessity to withdraw suit per Memorandum since right to restore suit on breach. Defendants 2 to 4, being directors of first defendant company, not parties to contracts including construction contract and Memorandum of Compromise. Their liability can be adjudicated only after trial. First defendant made out probable case for defending suit on ground of limitation as amendment applications filed beyond three years from Memorandum date. Court directed first defendant to deposit Rs.70,00,000 within two weeks, failing which summary judgment for the amount in plaintiff's favour. Application against defendants 2 to 4 dismissed as suit claim against them to be adjudicated after trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
