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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
For insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation runs from the demand notice invoking the guarantee and the guarantor's failure to pay within the stipulated period, not from the corporate debtor's default record. The Appellate Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.10.2019 validly invoked the personal guarantees, the relevant default date was 24.12.2019, and the Section 95 applications filed on 31.03.2022 were therefore within limitation. It also held that the absence of the revival letter with the original application was irrelevant to limitation, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the petitions as time-barred or in finding inconsistent default dates. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitions revived for fresh consideration under Section 100.
For insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation runs from the demand notice invoking the guarantee and the guarantor's failure to pay within the stipulated period, not from the corporate debtor's default record. The Appellate Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.10.2019 validly invoked the personal guarantees, the relevant default date was 24.12.2019, and the Section 95 applications filed on 31.03.2022 were therefore within limitation. It also held that the absence of the revival letter with the original application was irrelevant to limitation, and that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating the petitions as time-barred or in finding inconsistent default dates. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitions revived for fresh consideration under Section 100.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
