Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4827 
Join Channel 
