Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.