Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
RPA (Remote Pilot Aircraft) for military use defined to include drones/UAV/UAS; exemptions limited to specified defence imports with Joint Secretary c...
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.