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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent powers u/r 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 to approve a settlement between the second respondent and the Corporate Debtor, circumventing the prescribed procedure for withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A and Regulation 30A. The inherent powers cannot override specific legal provisions exhaustively providing a procedure. The NCLAT failed to provide reasons for deviating from the withdrawal procedure or the urgency necessitating approval without following due process. Once CIRP commenced, it became a collective proceeding involving all creditors as stakeholders. The NCLAT inadequately addressed the appellant's objections regarding the ongoing ED investigation against the respondents and attempts by the Corporate Debtor to dissipate assets. Despite the appellant not being a party to the settlement, it has locus standi as an aggrieved person u/ss 61 and 62 of the IBC to challenge the NCLAT order before the Supreme Court. The impugned NCLAT judgment is set aside.
The NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent powers u/r 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 to approve a settlement between the second respondent and the Corporate Debtor, circumventing the prescribed procedure for withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A and Regulation 30A. The inherent powers cannot override specific legal provisions exhaustively providing a procedure. The NCLAT failed to provide reasons for deviating from the withdrawal procedure or the urgency necessitating approval without following due process. Once CIRP commenced, it became a collective proceeding involving all creditors as stakeholders. The NCLAT inadequately addressed the appellant's objections regarding the ongoing ED investigation against the respondents and attempts by the Corporate Debtor to dissipate assets. Despite the appellant not being a party to the settlement, it has locus standi as an aggrieved person u/ss 61 and 62 of the IBC to challenge the NCLAT order before the Supreme Court. The impugned NCLAT judgment is set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
