Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated 17 February 2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the petitioner's alleged intent to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The HC held that, even if withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition to claim amnesty, only the petitioner could elect to withdraw; the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal suo motu absent any withdrawal request. Such dismissal, without notice or hearing, unlawfully deprived the petitioner both of eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme and of adjudication on merits. The HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority to rehear and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated 17 February 2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the petitioner's alleged intent to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The HC held that, even if withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition to claim amnesty, only the petitioner could elect to withdraw; the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal suo motu absent any withdrawal request. Such dismissal, without notice or hearing, unlawfully deprived the petitioner both of eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme and of adjudication on merits. The HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority to rehear and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.