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 17, 2024Case LawsHC
Violation of res judicata principles u/s 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, suppression of relevant facts from the Committee of Creditors (CoC), discrepancy in examining financial capability and eligibility of a Joint Resolution Applicant who is a former director of the Corporate Debtor and also a director in another company undergoing CIRP proceedings, disposal of the Corporate Debtor's assets without CoC approval, executing lease agreements with Prospective Resolution Applicants without CoC approval, and the review of an order by the Disciplinary Committee. The key issues are the eligibility of the Joint Resolution Applicant, non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regarding the Resolution Professional's obligations, and the Disciplinary Committee's jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its own order. The court held that the principles of res judicata do not apply, the Resolution Professional failed to exercise due diligence, and the Disciplinary Committee's determination regarding the Resolution Professional's contraventions was appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Violation of res judicata principles u/s 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, suppression of relevant facts from the Committee of Creditors (CoC), discrepancy in examining financial capability and eligibility of a Joint Resolution Applicant who is a former director of the Corporate Debtor and also a director in another company undergoing CIRP proceedings, disposal of the Corporate Debtor's assets without CoC approval, executing lease agreements with Prospective Resolution Applicants without CoC approval, and the review of an order by the Disciplinary Committee. The key issues are the eligibility of the Joint Resolution Applicant, non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code regarding the Resolution Professional's obligations, and the Disciplinary Committee's jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its own order. The court held that the principles of res judicata do not apply, the Resolution Professional failed to exercise due diligence, and the Disciplinary Committee's determination regarding the Resolution Professional's contraventions was appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
