Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the quashing of the e-auction conducted on 31.01.2024 for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and the rejection of the appellant's proposed Scheme of Arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that with the enactment of the IBC, the significance of Section 230(1) in addressing insolvency has diminished. The follow-up process u/s 230(1) is necessary only when the Liquidator fails to sustain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Regulation 32A mandates the Liquidator to prioritize selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to maximize value. Minor discrepancies during the bid process were deemed inconsequential as the Successful Bidder is operating the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, fulfilling the IBC's objective. The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the quashing of the e-auction conducted on 31.01.2024 for the sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and the rejection of the appellant's proposed Scheme of Arrangement u/s 230 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that with the enactment of the IBC, the significance of Section 230(1) in addressing insolvency has diminished. The follow-up process u/s 230(1) is necessary only when the Liquidator fails to sustain the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Regulation 32A mandates the Liquidator to prioritize selling the Corporate Debtor as a going concern to maximize value. Minor discrepancies during the bid process were deemed inconsequential as the Successful Bidder is operating the Corporate Debtor as a going concern, fulfilling the IBC's objective. The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
