Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
