Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The NCLAT denied the applicant's request for video recording of the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, finding no special reason or exceptional grounds to justify such recording. The applicant lacked locus as it did not participate in the CIRP or plan approval stages of the cases involving ESIL and OSPIL, whose resolution plans were approved and implemented with the sanction of the Adjudicating Authority, this Tribunal, and the Apex Court. The applicant's first involvement was a recall application filed in 2023, well after the approval and implementation of the resolution plans. Given these circumstances and the absence of compelling considerations, the Tribunal held that the applicant must make its submissions in the appeal without video recording. The application for recording was accordingly dismissed.
The NCLAT denied the applicant's request for video recording of the proceedings under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, finding no special reason or exceptional grounds to justify such recording. The applicant lacked locus as it did not participate in the CIRP or plan approval stages of the cases involving ESIL and OSPIL, whose resolution plans were approved and implemented with the sanction of the Adjudicating Authority, this Tribunal, and the Apex Court. The applicant's first involvement was a recall application filed in 2023, well after the approval and implementation of the resolution plans. Given these circumstances and the absence of compelling considerations, the Tribunal held that the applicant must make its submissions in the appeal without video recording. The application for recording was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
