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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 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 held that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject land is an asset of the corporate debtor, as such questions arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process. The proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed did not amount to an arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and thus were not binding on the parties. The IRP/RP could rightly include the subject land in the Information Memorandum/CIRP process by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation, as the corporate debtor claimed development rights over the land. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in allowing the intervention petition filed by Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject land is an asset of the corporate debtor, as such questions arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process. The proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed did not amount to an arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and thus were not binding on the parties. The IRP/RP could rightly include the subject land in the Information Memorandum/CIRP process by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation, as the corporate debtor claimed development rights over the land. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in allowing the intervention petition filed by Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
