Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
NCLAT rejected contempt proceedings against resolution professional (RP) for filing Section 12A withdrawal application. The Tribunal determined that RP's application for CIRP withdrawal, approved by 98% Committee of Creditors (CoC) vote share, did not constitute willful disobedience of prior tribunal order. The RP was statutorily obligated to file withdrawal application, and since CoC did not approve fee payments to former or current RP, no contempt could be established. The tribunal found no merit in the contempt application, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be construed as contumacious conduct, thereby dismissing the application and protecting the RP's procedural actions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLAT rejected contempt proceedings against resolution professional (RP) for filing Section 12A withdrawal application. The Tribunal determined that RP's application for CIRP withdrawal, approved by 98% Committee of Creditors (CoC) vote share, did not constitute willful disobedience of prior tribunal order. The RP was statutorily obligated to file withdrawal application, and since CoC did not approve fee payments to former or current RP, no contempt could be established. The tribunal found no merit in the contempt application, emphasizing that statutory compliance cannot be construed as contumacious conduct, thereby dismissing the application and protecting the RP's procedural actions under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
