Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's directive requiring the appellant to lift the lien and release a fixed deposit of Rs.27.60 crores (with interest) held in the name of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal held the appellant's refusal to release the FD on account of alleged dues of a related group company was unjustified: the lien letter authorised retention only for amounts due from the corporate debtor itself, singly or jointly, and no facility existed against which the corporate debtor was liable. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
NCLAT affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's directive requiring the appellant to lift the lien and release a fixed deposit of Rs.27.60 crores (with interest) held in the name of the corporate debtor. The Tribunal held the appellant's refusal to release the FD on account of alleged dues of a related group company was unjustified: the lien letter authorised retention only for amounts due from the corporate debtor itself, singly or jointly, and no facility existed against which the corporate debtor was liable. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority's order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
