Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 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" ?
NCLAT upheld the NCLT's refusal to admit a fresh Section 7 application filed by a financial creditor (a banking institution) against the corporate debtor, noting that CIRP had already commenced and was ongoing pursuant to earlier orders, including project-wise CIRP directions for the real estate entity. The Appellate Tribunal found no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order. However, it clarified that the applicant may pursue reliefs sought in the pending interlocutory application. NCLAT further recorded that, consistent with the amended CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional is at liberty to continue project-wise resolution for the unfinished project in which the applicant claims financial creditor status, including issuance of Information Memorandum and Form G.
NCLAT upheld the NCLT's refusal to admit a fresh Section 7 application filed by a financial creditor (a banking institution) against the corporate debtor, noting that CIRP had already commenced and was ongoing pursuant to earlier orders, including project-wise CIRP directions for the real estate entity. The Appellate Tribunal found no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order. However, it clarified that the applicant may pursue reliefs sought in the pending interlocutory application. NCLAT further recorded that, consistent with the amended CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional is at liberty to continue project-wise resolution for the unfinished project in which the applicant claims financial creditor status, including issuance of Information Memorandum and Form G.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
