Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeals challenged the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s Resolution Plan, alleging material irregularities by the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were the alleged modification of key commercial terms by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under the guise of clarifications sought by the RP, and the resulting perversity and discrimination. The NCLAT held that the CoC and RP did not grant any opportunity to the appellant to modify or amend the Resolution Plan's terms. While the Supreme Court in Ajay Gupta's case allowed modification, in the present case, the clarifications sought on 08.05.2023 did not permit any Resolution Applicant to modify their plans; only clarifications were requested. The appellant's contention that Sarda was permitted to modify its financial proposals under the guise of clarifications was rejected. No sufficient grounds were established u/s 61(3)(ii) of the IBC to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's approval of Sarda's Resolution Plan. Consequently, the appeals by the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants were dismissed.
The appeals challenged the approval of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd.'s Resolution Plan, alleging material irregularities by the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC). The key issues were the alleged modification of key commercial terms by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) under the guise of clarifications sought by the RP, and the resulting perversity and discrimination. The NCLAT held that the CoC and RP did not grant any opportunity to the appellant to modify or amend the Resolution Plan's terms. While the Supreme Court in Ajay Gupta's case allowed modification, in the present case, the clarifications sought on 08.05.2023 did not permit any Resolution Applicant to modify their plans; only clarifications were requested. The appellant's contention that Sarda was permitted to modify its financial proposals under the guise of clarifications was rejected. No sufficient grounds were established u/s 61(3)(ii) of the IBC to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's approval of Sarda's Resolution Plan. Consequently, the appeals by the Unsuccessful Resolution Applicants were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
