Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The corporate debtor cannot be prosecuted for prior liability after the approval of the Resolution Plan, as per Section 32-A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, the protection u/s 32-A is limited to the corporate debtor and does not extend to its Directors who were in charge when the offence was committed or were signatories to the cheque. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Radheshuyam Goenka case clarified that in proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the plan is approved or the company dissolved during the pendency, the Directors and other accused cannot escape liability by citing dissolution. They will have to continue facing prosecution. The High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petitions.
The corporate debtor cannot be prosecuted for prior liability after the approval of the Resolution Plan, as per Section 32-A of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC). However, the protection u/s 32-A is limited to the corporate debtor and does not extend to its Directors who were in charge when the offence was committed or were signatories to the cheque. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Radheshuyam Goenka case clarified that in proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the plan is approved or the company dissolved during the pendency, the Directors and other accused cannot escape liability by citing dissolution. They will have to continue facing prosecution. The High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
