Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC dismissed the petition seeking waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, affirming that the borrower must deposit 25% of the debt, including interest up to the appeal's institution date before the DRAT. The borrower failed to produce evidence negating the classification of the loan as an NPA or establish any financial hardship. Alleged accounting errors and partial payments post-Section 13(2) notice were insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case or justify waiver. The Court held that reliance on a typographical error in loan documents did not warrant interference with the DRAT's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions. Exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was deemed inappropriate as the borrower showed no bona fide intention to repay the debt. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition seeking waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, affirming that the borrower must deposit 25% of the debt, including interest up to the appeal's institution date before the DRAT. The borrower failed to produce evidence negating the classification of the loan as an NPA or establish any financial hardship. Alleged accounting errors and partial payments post-Section 13(2) notice were insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case or justify waiver. The Court held that reliance on a typographical error in loan documents did not warrant interference with the DRAT's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions. Exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was deemed inappropriate as the borrower showed no bona fide intention to repay the debt. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
