Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.
Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
