Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT dismissed a recall application, confirming that the Appellate Tribunal's power of recall is limited to exceptional circumstances as established in Union Bank of India case. The Tribunal held that a director who resigned after filing a petition on behalf of the corporate debtor cannot maintain the appeal, as their resignation nullified their capacity to represent the corporate debtor. Furthermore, a shareholder cannot be substituted in place of the suspended director due to their statutorily distinct status. The Tribunal emphasized that recall applications under Section 151 of CPC are not universally maintainable before Appellate Tribunals. Consequently, the recall application was deemed misconceived and dismissed, with the original order of 14.10.2024 confirmed.
The NCLAT dismissed a recall application, confirming that the Appellate Tribunal's power of recall is limited to exceptional circumstances as established in Union Bank of India case. The Tribunal held that a director who resigned after filing a petition on behalf of the corporate debtor cannot maintain the appeal, as their resignation nullified their capacity to represent the corporate debtor. Furthermore, a shareholder cannot be substituted in place of the suspended director due to their statutorily distinct status. The Tribunal emphasized that recall applications under Section 151 of CPC are not universally maintainable before Appellate Tribunals. Consequently, the recall application was deemed misconceived and dismissed, with the original order of 14.10.2024 confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
