Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
