Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The HC determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
The HC determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
