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 respondents were permitted to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, including invoking powers u/s 74, following the court's modification order granting liberty to consider the matter beyond Section 73. The challenge to the notice issued u/s 74 alleging fraud or suppression of facts cannot be assailed. The determination of whether suppression of facts warranting invocation of Section 74 occurred is a factual issue, and the authority has jurisdiction to issue a notice under that section. The writ court should not intervene at this stage when the petitioner is merely asked to show cause against the proposed action. The petition is disposed of.
The respondents were permitted to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, including invoking powers u/s 74, following the court's modification order granting liberty to consider the matter beyond Section 73. The challenge to the notice issued u/s 74 alleging fraud or suppression of facts cannot be assailed. The determination of whether suppression of facts warranting invocation of Section 74 occurred is a factual issue, and the authority has jurisdiction to issue a notice under that section. The writ court should not intervene at this stage when the petitioner is merely asked to show cause against the proposed action. The petition is disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.