Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5941 to 5960 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 7 insolvency proceedings were held to be within limitation because the corporate debtor's liability was repeatedly acknowledged in balance sheets, one-time settlement proposals and an email communication, attracting Section 18 of the Limitation Act and extending time. The Tribunal also applied the principle that a recovery certificate can constitute a fresh cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings, so the application could not be treated as time-barred. On substitution, it ruled that the deceased appellant's legal heir could continue the pending appeal, since substitution had already been permitted and the heir merely stepped into the appellant's shoes to preserve the existing proceedings. The limitation objection and the maintainability challenge were rejected.
Section 7 insolvency proceedings were held to be within limitation because the corporate debtor's liability was repeatedly acknowledged in balance sheets, one-time settlement proposals and an email communication, attracting Section 18 of the Limitation Act and extending time. The Tribunal also applied the principle that a recovery certificate can constitute a fresh cause of action for initiating insolvency proceedings, so the application could not be treated as time-barred. On substitution, it ruled that the deceased appellant's legal heir could continue the pending appeal, since substitution had already been permitted and the heir merely stepped into the appellant's shoes to preserve the existing proceedings. The limitation objection and the maintainability challenge were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.