Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The High Court, considering that the petitioner's certain pleas were not taken into account while issuing the notice u/s 74(1) and that the limitation for filing an appeal had been lost, directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount of Rs. 73,87,225.92, after adjusting any amount already paid within four weeks, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 shall stand set aside. The respondent would then afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, upholding the principles of natural justice.
The High Court, considering that the petitioner's certain pleas were not taken into account while issuing the notice u/s 74(1) and that the limitation for filing an appeal had been lost, directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount of Rs. 73,87,225.92, after adjusting any amount already paid within four weeks, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 shall stand set aside. The respondent would then afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, upholding the principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.