Charity-run tree plantation and maintenance for environmental preservation qualifies as "charitable activity", making supplies GST-exempt under Notifi...
Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7761 to 7780 of 96463 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.