Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6761 to 6780 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In proceedings under ss. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the dominant issue was whether an interim stay order was vitiated for want of reasons. It was held that an interim order under Rules 11 and 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is discretionary, requires only prima facie satisfaction, and is not a merits adjudication warranting elaborate reasoning; moreover, the order was passed after hearing and was not ex parte, and the cited sentencing jurisprudence was inapplicable. The appellant was relegated to seek relief by filing a stay-vacation application before the tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. - NCLAT
In proceedings under ss. 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the dominant issue was whether an interim stay order was vitiated for want of reasons. It was held that an interim order under Rules 11 and 32 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 is discretionary, requires only prima facie satisfaction, and is not a merits adjudication warranting elaborate reasoning; moreover, the order was passed after hearing and was not ex parte, and the cited sentencing jurisprudence was inapplicable. The appellant was relegated to seek relief by filing a stay-vacation application before the tribunal, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.