Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
