Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
NCLAT considered company appeals challenging an order dismissing contempt proceedings arising from an interlocutory order passed under the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal held that, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal lies only from an order or decision of a High Court "to punish for contempt," i.e., an order imposing punishment under Section 12, and not from a mere dismissal of a contempt petition. As the impugned order only rejected the contempt petition without awarding any punishment, it did not qualify as an appealable order under Section 19. NCLAT further noted that the I&B Code does not incorporate the Contempt of Courts Act by reference. Consequently, the company appeals filed by the anonymized appellants against dismissal of contempt were held not maintainable and were dismissed.
NCLAT considered company appeals challenging an order dismissing contempt proceedings arising from an interlocutory order passed under the I&B Code. The Appellate Tribunal held that, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal lies only from an order or decision of a High Court "to punish for contempt," i.e., an order imposing punishment under Section 12, and not from a mere dismissal of a contempt petition. As the impugned order only rejected the contempt petition without awarding any punishment, it did not qualify as an appealable order under Section 19. NCLAT further noted that the I&B Code does not incorporate the Contempt of Courts Act by reference. Consequently, the company appeals filed by the anonymized appellants against dismissal of contempt were held not maintainable and were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
