Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Delay in re-filing a company appeal was not condoned because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause or due diligence in curing defects. The NCLAT held that, especially in insolvency matters, re-filing delays must be assessed strictly in light of the Code's time-bound framework, and generic explanations such as re-pagination, paper-book restructuring, rescanning, and internal record retrieval are inadequate without material particulars. Here, no defect sheet, specific Registry objections, or date-wise chronology of corrective steps was produced, and the claim that records were in Mumbai was treated as a bare logistical inconvenience. The application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal was consequently rejected.
Delay in re-filing a company appeal was not condoned because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause or due diligence in curing defects. The NCLAT held that, especially in insolvency matters, re-filing delays must be assessed strictly in light of the Code's time-bound framework, and generic explanations such as re-pagination, paper-book restructuring, rescanning, and internal record retrieval are inadequate without material particulars. Here, no defect sheet, specific Registry objections, or date-wise chronology of corrective steps was produced, and the claim that records were in Mumbai was treated as a bare logistical inconvenience. The application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal was consequently rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.