Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 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 examined a challenge to a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal held that the applicant, as an unsuccessful resolution applicant, lacks locus standi to challenge the plan, except on specific eligibility grounds. The CoC's commercial wisdom in selecting a resolution plan was deemed non-justiciable. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, confirmed Respondent No. 3's eligibility under Section 29A, and determined that a related party connection was not established. The revised financial bid submitted post-timeline was rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original resolution plan's approval.
The NCLAT examined a challenge to a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal held that the applicant, as an unsuccessful resolution applicant, lacks locus standi to challenge the plan, except on specific eligibility grounds. The CoC's commercial wisdom in selecting a resolution plan was deemed non-justiciable. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, confirmed Respondent No. 3's eligibility under Section 29A, and determined that a related party connection was not established. The revised financial bid submitted post-timeline was rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original resolution plan's approval.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
