Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under section 60(5) to entertain the Resolution Professional's eviction application because the corporate debtor's ownership of the premises was undisputed and recovery of its own asset fell within the duty to take control, custody, preservation and protection of assets. The appellant failed to prove any tenancy, lease or licence; the record showed only permissive stocking of goods, with no rent, lease terms, or possessory right. The civil court's interim order did not bar eviction, as the Code excludes civil court jurisdiction where the insolvency forum is competent. The appeal was dismissed and possession was directed to be handed over to the Resolution Professional.
The Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction under section 60(5) to entertain the Resolution Professional's eviction application because the corporate debtor's ownership of the premises was undisputed and recovery of its own asset fell within the duty to take control, custody, preservation and protection of assets. The appellant failed to prove any tenancy, lease or licence; the record showed only permissive stocking of goods, with no rent, lease terms, or possessory right. The civil court's interim order did not bar eviction, as the Code excludes civil court jurisdiction where the insolvency forum is competent. The appeal was dismissed and possession was directed to be handed over to the Resolution Professional.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.