Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
The court examined whether the application filed by the State Bank of India against the personal guarantor u/s 95 was barred by limitation. It was held that even if no plea regarding limitation was raised, the court is obliged to examine the issue. The bank's pleadings clearly contained the extension of limitation u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. Since the pleadings were on record providing for extension, no error was committed by the Adjudicating Authority in admitting the Section 95 application against the personal guarantor. The application was not barred by limitation. Regarding the admission of the application, the court held that the notice of demand was clearly given to the personal guarantor. The contention that fresh notices were required before filing the Section 95 application was rejected. Once the guarantee was invoked, the bank was entitled to initiate proceedings. Since the application was well within time, this ground could not be a reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's order admitting the Section 95 application, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
