Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the company appeal as time-barred, holding the appellant could not invoke Section 14 Limitation Act to exclude periods spent litigating a commercial suit which he instituted and pursued to final judgment on 05.10.2021. The tribunal found the appellant had constructive knowledge of the alleged wrongful transfer of 500 shares on 11.05.2016, rendering proceedings under Section 59 Companies Act barred by the limitation period read with Sections 3 and 5 Limitation Act. The earlier Commercial Court judgment operating as constructive res judicata precludes relief; no extension of limitation was warranted and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the company appeal as time-barred, holding the appellant could not invoke Section 14 Limitation Act to exclude periods spent litigating a commercial suit which he instituted and pursued to final judgment on 05.10.2021. The tribunal found the appellant had constructive knowledge of the alleged wrongful transfer of 500 shares on 11.05.2016, rendering proceedings under Section 59 Companies Act barred by the limitation period read with Sections 3 and 5 Limitation Act. The earlier Commercial Court judgment operating as constructive res judicata precludes relief; no extension of limitation was warranted and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
