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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
In a dispute involving corporate governance and alleged oppressive conduct, the Tri examined multiple allegations against the Respondent No. 1 Company. After comprehensive review of claims including unauthorized share buy-back, remuneration discrepancies, and potential fraudulent transactions, the Tri found no substantive evidence of oppressive practices. The tribunal determined that the Petitioner failed to establish grounds under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013. Key findings included: legitimate employment perquisites, timely insurance policy credits, and no proven benami property transactions. The board's dividend discretion was affirmed, and procedural challenges were deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Tri dismissed the petition, ruling no oppressive conduct was demonstrated.
In a dispute involving corporate governance and alleged oppressive conduct, the Tri examined multiple allegations against the Respondent No. 1 Company. After comprehensive review of claims including unauthorized share buy-back, remuneration discrepancies, and potential fraudulent transactions, the Tri found no substantive evidence of oppressive practices. The tribunal determined that the Petitioner failed to establish grounds under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013. Key findings included: legitimate employment perquisites, timely insurance policy credits, and no proven benami property transactions. The board's dividend discretion was affirmed, and procedural challenges were deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Tri dismissed the petition, ruling no oppressive conduct was demonstrated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
