Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The petitioner was directed to pay a 5% penalty of the prevailing plot cost for the belated implementation of the project as per Clause 2.1.2.(a) of O.O.No.30 of 2020. However, the petitioner complied with the clause by utilizing more than 65% of the plot and had commenced production before dispatching goods. Despite paying the penalty amount, the petitioner was again directed to pay a 5% penalty. The Court found infirmity and illegality in the impugned order and quashed it, allowing the petition, as the petitioner had already paid the penalty and commenced production before dispatching goods, complying with all conditions.
The petitioner was directed to pay a 5% penalty of the prevailing plot cost for the belated implementation of the project as per Clause 2.1.2.(a) of O.O.No.30 of 2020. However, the petitioner complied with the clause by utilizing more than 65% of the plot and had commenced production before dispatching goods. Despite paying the penalty amount, the petitioner was again directed to pay a 5% penalty. The Court found infirmity and illegality in the impugned order and quashed it, allowing the petition, as the petitioner had already paid the penalty and commenced production before dispatching goods, complying with all conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
