Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations vitiated disciplinary proceedings because Regulation 17(4) creates a mandatory procedural protection; the inquiry relied on oral statements that the respondent was not permitted to test, and that breach rendered the revocation order unsustainable. The Tribunal correctly set aside the revocation for non compliance with Regulation 17(4) and breach of natural justice. Any findings about prescribed timelines were rendered immaterial where procedural fairness under Regulation 17(4) was violated, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference.
Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations vitiated disciplinary proceedings because Regulation 17(4) creates a mandatory procedural protection; the inquiry relied on oral statements that the respondent was not permitted to test, and that breach rendered the revocation order unsustainable. The Tribunal correctly set aside the revocation for non compliance with Regulation 17(4) and breach of natural justice. Any findings about prescribed timelines were rendered immaterial where procedural fairness under Regulation 17(4) was violated, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.