Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) rightly considered and rejected the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Saverni Neutech Pvt. Ltd. and approved the plan of M/s. Trinity India Forgetech Pvt. Ltd. with 92.87% vote share. M/s. Saverni Neutech Pvt. Ltd. had no occasion to pray for a revised resolution plan when it failed to file a plan within the stipulated time. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application filed by Sandeep Jayantilal Vadodria. Regarding Prem Trading Company's appeal, its authorized representative Rakesh Patel was present in the CoC meeting and rightly exited from voting on approving the resolution plan due to conflict of interest as a co-resolution applicant. Prem Trading Company's 2.48% vote share was insignificant, and the plan was approved by HDFC Bank Ltd., the largest creditor with 92.87% vote share. The appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.
The court held that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) rightly considered and rejected the resolution plan submitted by M/s. Saverni Neutech Pvt. Ltd. and approved the plan of M/s. Trinity India Forgetech Pvt. Ltd. with 92.87% vote share. M/s. Saverni Neutech Pvt. Ltd. had no occasion to pray for a revised resolution plan when it failed to file a plan within the stipulated time. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in rejecting the application filed by Sandeep Jayantilal Vadodria. Regarding Prem Trading Company's appeal, its authorized representative Rakesh Patel was present in the CoC meeting and rightly exited from voting on approving the resolution plan due to conflict of interest as a co-resolution applicant. Prem Trading Company's 2.48% vote share was insignificant, and the plan was approved by HDFC Bank Ltd., the largest creditor with 92.87% vote share. The appeals were dismissed as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
