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" ?
Costs cannot be imposed on a litigant for counsel's lapse where the record shows no lack of diligence by the litigant himself. The NCLAT applied the settled principle that a party should not suffer for the slackness or dereliction of the advocate representing him and found that the failure to press an application or properly marshal documents was attributable to counsel, not the appellant. It also noted that the impugned order did not disclose any basis for quantifying the costs. The costs direction was therefore set aside, while the appellant was required to participate diligently in the remaining proceedings and the main company petition was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Costs cannot be imposed on a litigant for counsel's lapse where the record shows no lack of diligence by the litigant himself. The NCLAT applied the settled principle that a party should not suffer for the slackness or dereliction of the advocate representing him and found that the failure to press an application or properly marshal documents was attributable to counsel, not the appellant. It also noted that the impugned order did not disclose any basis for quantifying the costs. The costs direction was therefore set aside, while the appellant was required to participate diligently in the remaining proceedings and the main company petition was directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.