Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
An earlier order granting possession and access to the Resolution Professional had already attained finality after dismissal of the appeal, so the suspended director could not reopen the question through a later access claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing withdrawal of the application while still directing the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the applicant, because that direction effectively disturbed a concluded issue. The access direction was therefore set aside. The Tribunal did not decide the rights of other occupants allegedly operating from the premises, leaving them free to seek independent relief before the Adjudicating Authority if they claim obstruction.
An earlier order granting possession and access to the Resolution Professional had already attained finality after dismissal of the appeal, so the suspended director could not reopen the question through a later access claim. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing withdrawal of the application while still directing the Resolution Professional to ensure full access to the applicant, because that direction effectively disturbed a concluded issue. The access direction was therefore set aside. The Tribunal did not decide the rights of other occupants allegedly operating from the premises, leaving them free to seek independent relief before the Adjudicating Authority if they claim obstruction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.