Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
