Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6221 to 6240 of 96365 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 the CLB had jurisdiction to condone a 249-day delay in an appeal under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether s.433 (enabling application of the Limitation Act, 1963) could apply retrospectively to CLB proceedings. The Court held that, during the interregnum before 01.06.2016, the statute did not empower the CLB to apply s.5 of the Limitation Act, and its limited "court-like" status and procedural regulations could not be expanded into a power to extend statutory limitation. Section 58(3) was construed as mandatory; the High Court's affirmance was set aside and the appeal allowed. - SC
The dominant issue was whether the CLB had jurisdiction to condone a 249-day delay in an appeal under s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, including whether s.433 (enabling application of the Limitation Act, 1963) could apply retrospectively to CLB proceedings. The Court held that, during the interregnum before 01.06.2016, the statute did not empower the CLB to apply s.5 of the Limitation Act, and its limited "court-like" status and procedural regulations could not be expanded into a power to extend statutory limitation. Section 58(3) was construed as mandatory; the High Court's affirmance was set aside and the appeal allowed. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
