PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC upheld the termination of the Development and Supplementary Agreements by Respondent No.1 Society as lawful, effective and based on prolonged contractual defaults unrelated to insolvency. It held that the developer only had a limited licence, with no proprietary or transferable interest in the land; hence no "asset" or "property" of the corporate debtor subsisted on the second CIRP commencement date, and Section 14 IBC moratorium could not revive or protect extinguished contractual rights. NCLT lacked jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC to interfere with such termination. SC further held that HC rightly exercised writ jurisdiction to direct processing of approvals for Respondent No.8 and that no violation of natural justice occurred. The appeal was dismissed.
SC upheld the termination of the Development and Supplementary Agreements by Respondent No.1 Society as lawful, effective and based on prolonged contractual defaults unrelated to insolvency. It held that the developer only had a limited licence, with no proprietary or transferable interest in the land; hence no "asset" or "property" of the corporate debtor subsisted on the second CIRP commencement date, and Section 14 IBC moratorium could not revive or protect extinguished contractual rights. NCLT lacked jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) IBC to interfere with such termination. SC further held that HC rightly exercised writ jurisdiction to direct processing of approvals for Respondent No.8 and that no violation of natural justice occurred. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.