Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Determination of the limitation period for filing an appeal u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the scope of an "Aggrieved Person," and the principle of Estoppel by Conduct. The key points are: The appellant cannot claim the benefit of the extended limitation period due to COVID-19, as the mandatory 30-day period for applying for a certified copy of the impugned order had expired much before the extended period commenced on 15.03.2020. The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of procuring a certified copy within the prescribed time, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, creates a legal bar u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's inaction to apply for a certified copy, despite having knowledge, would constitute an "Estoppel by Conduct." Consequently, the application for condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed.
Determination of the limitation period for filing an appeal u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the scope of an "Aggrieved Person," and the principle of Estoppel by Conduct. The key points are: The appellant cannot claim the benefit of the extended limitation period due to COVID-19, as the mandatory 30-day period for applying for a certified copy of the impugned order had expired much before the extended period commenced on 15.03.2020. The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of procuring a certified copy within the prescribed time, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, creates a legal bar u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's inaction to apply for a certified copy, despite having knowledge, would constitute an "Estoppel by Conduct." Consequently, the application for condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
