Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
NCLAT held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance because counsel's absence on the relevant date was supported by the record and appeared genuine, even though an adjournment should have been sought earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be given an opportunity to contest the matter. The order rejecting restoration of the petition dismissed for non-prosecution was set aside, and the restoration application was revived and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision after hearing both sides, including the defence regarding absence on 16.05.2025, in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.