Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6801 to 6820 of 96332 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.