Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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 examined whether the suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, being a shareholder, lacks locus standi to challenge the secured creditor's actions. However, the pleadings allege fraud and collusion between the respondents, including the bank, in sanctioning the loan without due process. The court held that averments of fraud and collusion cannot be rejected outright, and the relief sought for declaring the loan facility and mortgage as null is not within DRT's jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act but permissible under Specific Relief Act. The lower courts erred in considering documents contrary to pleadings. The petitioner cannot be denied remedy against secured creditors' actions. Consequently, the High Court quashed the lower court orders, restoring the plaint to the Commercial Court for adjudication in accordance with law.
The court examined whether the suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, being a shareholder, lacks locus standi to challenge the secured creditor's actions. However, the pleadings allege fraud and collusion between the respondents, including the bank, in sanctioning the loan without due process. The court held that averments of fraud and collusion cannot be rejected outright, and the relief sought for declaring the loan facility and mortgage as null is not within DRT's jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act but permissible under Specific Relief Act. The lower courts erred in considering documents contrary to pleadings. The petitioner cannot be denied remedy against secured creditors' actions. Consequently, the High Court quashed the lower court orders, restoring the plaint to the Commercial Court for adjudication in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
