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...
The NCLAT held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) under Bye-Law 23A does not automatically debar a Resolution Professional (RP) from continuing with pending or existing assignments; it only prohibits the RP from accepting fresh assignments. The Tribunal found no majority opinion supporting the replacement of the RP and set aside the prior order directing such replacement. The statutory framework under the IBBI Regulations indicates that suspension as a penalty restricts new assignments but does not affect ongoing ones. Consequently, the directions for replacing the RP were quashed, and the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to proceed with the plan approval application. The appeal was allowed in part, clarifying the scope of suspension under Bye-Law 23A and protecting the RP's continuation on existing cases.
The NCLAT held that suspension of authorisation for assignment (AFA) under Bye-Law 23A does not automatically debar a Resolution Professional (RP) from continuing with pending or existing assignments; it only prohibits the RP from accepting fresh assignments. The Tribunal found no majority opinion supporting the replacement of the RP and set aside the prior order directing such replacement. The statutory framework under the IBBI Regulations indicates that suspension as a penalty restricts new assignments but does not affect ongoing ones. Consequently, the directions for replacing the RP were quashed, and the Adjudicating Authority was permitted to proceed with the plan approval application. The appeal was allowed in part, clarifying the scope of suspension under Bye-Law 23A and protecting the RP's continuation on existing cases.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
