Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
NCLAT upheld NCLT's rejection of recall application, finding appellant lacks locus standi under Sections 241 and 242 of Companies Act. The tribunal determined that Section 44 of Evidence Act does not provide grounds for intervention by a non-party to original proceedings. The court emphasized that appellant, as spouse of original party, cannot challenge the order or cost imposition when the primary litigant's challenge was unsuccessful. The appeal was dismissed, confirming NCLT's original order and maintaining the procedural integrity of the legal process.
NCLAT upheld NCLT's rejection of recall application, finding appellant lacks locus standi under Sections 241 and 242 of Companies Act. The tribunal determined that Section 44 of Evidence Act does not provide grounds for intervention by a non-party to original proceedings. The court emphasized that appellant, as spouse of original party, cannot challenge the order or cost imposition when the primary litigant's challenge was unsuccessful. The appeal was dismissed, confirming NCLT's original order and maintaining the procedural integrity of the legal process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.