Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
Insolvency and BankruptcySeptember 6, 2024Case LawsAT
Appellants filed claims after the cut-off date for submission of claims in the insolvency resolution process. The approved resolution plan kept such delayed claims alive for six months, requiring the successful resolution applicant (SRA) to address them as per clause 18.4(v). The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the appellants' application, observing that their delayed claims must be considered and settled by the SRA in line with clause 18.4(v), which binds all stakeholders, including the appellants and the SRA. The appellate tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and disposed of the appeal.
Appellants filed claims after the cut-off date for submission of claims in the insolvency resolution process. The approved resolution plan kept such delayed claims alive for six months, requiring the successful resolution applicant (SRA) to address them as per clause 18.4(v). The Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the appellants' application, observing that their delayed claims must be considered and settled by the SRA in line with clause 18.4(v), which binds all stakeholders, including the appellants and the SRA. The appellate tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order and disposed of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
