Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In the case at hand, the workmen's claims for wages and other dues were rejected by the liquidator due to lack of evidence substantiating their employment on the date of commencement of liquidation proceedings. The corporate debtor had ceased operations in June 2010, and the appellants themselves admitted to working only until April 2012. Despite the alleged violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the factory closure, the NCLT and NCLAT held that the appropriate remedy was to approach the Industrial Court or Labour Court, rather than raising the issue during the liquidation process. The tribunals relied on a precedent case involving Era Labourer Union, where similar claims were rejected for lack of verification from the date of closure. The NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the liquidator did not err in rejecting the claims due to insufficient evidence of employment until the commencement of liquidation.
In the case at hand, the workmen's claims for wages and other dues were rejected by the liquidator due to lack of evidence substantiating their employment on the date of commencement of liquidation proceedings. The corporate debtor had ceased operations in June 2010, and the appellants themselves admitted to working only until April 2012. Despite the alleged violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the factory closure, the NCLT and NCLAT held that the appropriate remedy was to approach the Industrial Court or Labour Court, rather than raising the issue during the liquidation process. The tribunals relied on a precedent case involving Era Labourer Union, where similar claims were rejected for lack of verification from the date of closure. The NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's decision, stating that the liquidator did not err in rejecting the claims due to insufficient evidence of employment until the commencement of liquidation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.