Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
