Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96262 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.