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 BankruptcySeptember 7, 2024Case LawsHC
The application sought amendment of the plaint to implead a new defendant, which was contested on grounds of the bar u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and that the amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the suit. The court held that amendments at the pre-trial stage are liberally allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy between parties, unless it changes the nature of the suit or the amended claim would be barred by limitation or statutory provisions. The bar u/s 14(1)(a) IBC prohibits institution or continuation of suits against the corporate debtor once moratorium is ordered, while Section 14(1)(c) bars actions to enforce security interest. The proposed amendment to enforce security interest cannot be allowed, but the court refrained from delving into merits of the claim regarding validity of the subsequent development agreement. The application was partly allowed.
The application sought amendment of the plaint to implead a new defendant, which was contested on grounds of the bar u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and that the amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the suit. The court held that amendments at the pre-trial stage are liberally allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy between parties, unless it changes the nature of the suit or the amended claim would be barred by limitation or statutory provisions. The bar u/s 14(1)(a) IBC prohibits institution or continuation of suits against the corporate debtor once moratorium is ordered, while Section 14(1)(c) bars actions to enforce security interest. The proposed amendment to enforce security interest cannot be allowed, but the court refrained from delving into merits of the claim regarding validity of the subsequent development agreement. The application was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
