Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
