Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant did not violate any provisions of law, including Regulation 37(ba) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Tribunal ruled that Regulation 37 requires the Resolution Plan to provide measures as necessary, including but not limited to those enumerated in clauses (a) to (m). Clause (ba) pertains to restructuring through merger, amalgamation, or demerger, which is required only when necessary for insolvency resolution. The NCLAT upheld the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving the Resolution Plan, stating that the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to analyze or evaluate such commercial decisions unless the Plan violates Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant did not violate any provisions of law, including Regulation 37(ba) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Tribunal ruled that Regulation 37 requires the Resolution Plan to provide measures as necessary, including but not limited to those enumerated in clauses (a) to (m). Clause (ba) pertains to restructuring through merger, amalgamation, or demerger, which is required only when necessary for insolvency resolution. The NCLAT upheld the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving the Resolution Plan, stating that the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction to analyze or evaluate such commercial decisions unless the Plan violates Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
