Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that section 458A prescribes a clear, unambiguous four-year limitation (three years plus one) for recovery actions following a winding-up order, commencing from the date of the winding-up order and excluding the period between commencement of winding-up proceedings and the winding-up order. Consequently, the Single Judge's conclusion that limitation commences from filing of the statement of affairs was set aside. Because the winding-up order merged with the appellate order dated 06.03.2020, limitation for continuation of proceedings began from that date. The application filed by the Official Liquidator on 13.09.2020 fell within the statutory period under section 458A. Appeal dismissed.
The HC held that section 458A prescribes a clear, unambiguous four-year limitation (three years plus one) for recovery actions following a winding-up order, commencing from the date of the winding-up order and excluding the period between commencement of winding-up proceedings and the winding-up order. Consequently, the Single Judge's conclusion that limitation commences from filing of the statement of affairs was set aside. Because the winding-up order merged with the appellate order dated 06.03.2020, limitation for continuation of proceedings began from that date. The application filed by the Official Liquidator on 13.09.2020 fell within the statutory period under section 458A. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
