Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
