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 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the bank's application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act for taking possession of secured assets. The court found that while the bank's application lacked a formal affidavit (a curable procedural defect), it contained verified transaction history and detailed asset descriptions. The petitioners had not denied receiving the Section 13(2) notice, nor had they responded to or challenged it before competent authorities. Following R.D. Jain and Company (2022), the court affirmed that the DM/CMM's role under Section 14 is ministerial, requiring verification of application information but not adjudication. The court concluded the petitioners were attempting to delay proceedings by concealing notice service facts.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the bank's application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act for taking possession of secured assets. The court found that while the bank's application lacked a formal affidavit (a curable procedural defect), it contained verified transaction history and detailed asset descriptions. The petitioners had not denied receiving the Section 13(2) notice, nor had they responded to or challenged it before competent authorities. Following R.D. Jain and Company (2022), the court affirmed that the DM/CMM's role under Section 14 is ministerial, requiring verification of application information but not adjudication. The court concluded the petitioners were attempting to delay proceedings by concealing notice service facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
