Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Adjudicating Authority retained jurisdiction to decide the pending application for recovery of corporate debtor's assets even after approval of the resolution plan, since the application had been filed and contested prior to plan approval and was validly continued by substitution of the successful resolution applicant/corporate debtor; the jurisdictional objection was rejected. The Authority also had jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to examine the MoU and related rights; the unregistered MoU, premised on disputed cash payments and surrounded by credibility concerns, was not an agreement to sell and could not confer protection under Section 53A TPA, rendering the appellant an unauthorised occupant; eviction and handover were upheld. Usage charges were sustained, payable upon proper determination. - NCLAT
The Adjudicating Authority retained jurisdiction to decide the pending application for recovery of corporate debtor's assets even after approval of the resolution plan, since the application had been filed and contested prior to plan approval and was validly continued by substitution of the successful resolution applicant/corporate debtor; the jurisdictional objection was rejected. The Authority also had jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to examine the MoU and related rights; the unregistered MoU, premised on disputed cash payments and surrounded by credibility concerns, was not an agreement to sell and could not confer protection under Section 53A TPA, rendering the appellant an unauthorised occupant; eviction and handover were upheld. Usage charges were sustained, payable upon proper determination. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
