Faceless assessment and registration procedures are updated through electronic communication, revised recovery rules, extended deadlines, and replacem...
Risk-based selective vessel boarding requires accurate declarations and preserves master and agent liability where physical inspections are not select...
Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
The NCLAT held that the Section 95 application filed by Respondent No. 1 Bank against the personal guarantor was within the limitation period. The demand notice u/s 13(2) was issued on 04.06.2021, and the 60-day period for default expired on 04.08.2021. As the guarantee was an on-demand guarantee, the default arose when the demand was made. The Section 95 application filed on 18.06.2022 was thus within limitation. The NCLAT also held that the application was filed by a duly authorized person, an AGM, as per the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed as devoid of merit.
The NCLAT held that the Section 95 application filed by Respondent No. 1 Bank against the personal guarantor was within the limitation period. The demand notice u/s 13(2) was issued on 04.06.2021, and the 60-day period for default expired on 04.08.2021. As the guarantee was an on-demand guarantee, the default arose when the demand was made. The Section 95 application filed on 18.06.2022 was thus within limitation. The NCLAT also held that the application was filed by a duly authorized person, an AGM, as per the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
