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" ?
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional duties upheld
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article 226: the Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate, permitting interference only for decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse; factual reappraisal is impermissible - challenge dismissed on this ground. On the substantive obligation of an insolvency professional, the Court held that statutory duties under Section 30(2), Section 29A, the Regulations and the Code of Conduct require active compliance, and ignorance of cancellation of an MSME certificate does not absolve responsibility - outcome: impugned findings upheld. Attempts to litigate factual merits not raised below and res judicata against a second show-cause notice were rejected; appeal dismissed. - HC
The dominant issue is the scope of judicial review under Article 226: the Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction is supervisory not appellate, permitting interference only for decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse; factual reappraisal is impermissible - challenge dismissed on this ground. On the substantive obligation of an insolvency professional, the Court held that statutory duties under Section 30(2), Section 29A, the Regulations and the Code of Conduct require active compliance, and ignorance of cancellation of an MSME certificate does not absolve responsibility - outcome: impugned findings upheld. Attempts to litigate factual merits not raised below and res judicata against a second show-cause notice were rejected; appeal dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.