Reopening assessments beyond four years requires nondisclosure of material facts; mere change of opinion or general allegations invalidates reassessme...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6201 to 6220 of 96407 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether a deed clause and related pleadings created a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to support initiation of CIRP against the alleged surety under s.7 of the IBC. The Court held that a guarantee requires an unambiguous undertaking to discharge a third party's liability upon default; a limited statement in mortgage-enforcement pleadings that liability was confined to the mortgaged property did not establish such a guarantee, and case law on admissions under s.58 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. - SC
The dominant issue was whether a deed clause and related pleadings created a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to support initiation of CIRP against the alleged surety under s.7 of the IBC. The Court held that a guarantee requires an unambiguous undertaking to discharge a third party's liability upon default; a limited statement in mortgage-enforcement pleadings that liability was confined to the mortgaged property did not establish such a guarantee, and case law on admissions under s.58 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
