Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The HC dismissed the recall application challenging the disclaimer order passed in winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that the Company Court's powers are limited and do not extend to granting specific performance without a trial, especially where limitation has expired and no suit was filed. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable due to lack of a subsisting enforceable contract and prior possession under a lease/license. The applicant, lacking locus standi as a contributory with no further interest, was barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC from re-agitating dismissed claims. No material fact was suppressed to justify recall, and no jurisdictional error or ground for review was shown. The order disclaiming the onerous property burden was valid, and the property never vested in the company. Consequently, the recall application was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
The HC dismissed the recall application challenging the disclaimer order passed in winding up proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013. The court held that the Company Court's powers are limited and do not extend to granting specific performance without a trial, especially where limitation has expired and no suit was filed. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable due to lack of a subsisting enforceable contract and prior possession under a lease/license. The applicant, lacking locus standi as a contributory with no further interest, was barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC from re-agitating dismissed claims. No material fact was suppressed to justify recall, and no jurisdictional error or ground for review was shown. The order disclaiming the onerous property burden was valid, and the property never vested in the company. Consequently, the recall application was rejected and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
