Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed the review petition challenging pre-deposit requirements with Rs.10,000/- costs. The petition failed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Advocate's certificate accompanying the review petition did not comply with Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay HC Rules. The court rejected petitioner's argument that being a loss-making unit warranted waiver of 10% pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit conditions. The review jurisdiction being limited in scope, and the petition essentially attempting to re-argue the matter, no grounds were established for exercising review powers.
HC dismissed the review petition challenging pre-deposit requirements with Rs.10,000/- costs. The petition failed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Advocate's certificate accompanying the review petition did not comply with Rule 23(iii) of Chapter IV of the Bombay HC Rules. The court rejected petitioner's argument that being a loss-making unit warranted waiver of 10% pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to circumvent pre-deposit conditions. The review jurisdiction being limited in scope, and the petition essentially attempting to re-argue the matter, no grounds were established for exercising review powers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
