PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.