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...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
No prescribed limitation period governed petitions under the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, but unexplained delay could still matter where relief is discretionary; on these facts, the grievance concerned a continuing course of oppression and mismanagement, so delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar scrutiny. The Board could examine fraud and forgery on the record where the material disclosed mala fide exclusion, and its findings on shareholding, clandestine meetings and oppressive conduct were not perverse under Section 10F because they rested on company records and correspondence. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 required due diligence and necessity, which were not shown. The special auditor direction was only consequential and was upheld.
No prescribed limitation period governed petitions under the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, but unexplained delay could still matter where relief is discretionary; on these facts, the grievance concerned a continuing course of oppression and mismanagement, so delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar scrutiny. The Board could examine fraud and forgery on the record where the material disclosed mala fide exclusion, and its findings on shareholding, clandestine meetings and oppressive conduct were not perverse under Section 10F because they rested on company records and correspondence. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 required due diligence and necessity, which were not shown. The special auditor direction was only consequential and was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
