Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96208 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.