Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1141 to 1160 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4821 
Join Channel 
