Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and quashed the directions issued in Sub-para 1 of Para 11 of the impugned order, which directed the respondents to involve the applicant/petitioner (Mr. R.P. Trivikram) in all the affairs of Respondent No. 1 Company. The NCLAT held that the directions given in the impugned order were contrary to the earlier order dated 07.08.2018, which was limited to confirming the settlement dated 14.06.2017. The tribunal observed that the impugned directions, obtained through a miscellaneous application, sought to revive the power of the erstwhile Managing Director, Mr. R.P. Trivikram, who had been removed from the post, thereby going beyond the terms of the settlement. The NCLAT ruled that such an extension of the order through miscellaneous proceedings was not permissible, particularly when the case was sought to be reopened in a manner akin to review or recall, which was not allowed under the terms of the earlier order.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and quashed the directions issued in Sub-para 1 of Para 11 of the impugned order, which directed the respondents to involve the applicant/petitioner (Mr. R.P. Trivikram) in all the affairs of Respondent No. 1 Company. The NCLAT held that the directions given in the impugned order were contrary to the earlier order dated 07.08.2018, which was limited to confirming the settlement dated 14.06.2017. The tribunal observed that the impugned directions, obtained through a miscellaneous application, sought to revive the power of the erstwhile Managing Director, Mr. R.P. Trivikram, who had been removed from the post, thereby going beyond the terms of the settlement. The NCLAT ruled that such an extension of the order through miscellaneous proceedings was not permissible, particularly when the case was sought to be reopened in a manner akin to review or recall, which was not allowed under the terms of the earlier order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
