Mark-to-Market losses on principal-protected debentures are deductible as business expenditure when the obligation is crystallized under mercantile ac...
Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
