Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
