Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 31 review of a resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance and procedural fairness; the Adjudicating Authority cannot reappraise CoC commercial wisdom unless the record shows opacity, incomplete disclosure or abuse of CIRP. The Tribunal found the Information Memorandum and process defective because asset values fell, liabilities disappeared, and no proper audit or meaningful disclosure explained the changes or addressed possible avoidance issues. It also recognised an implied duty on a creditor involved in parallel CIRPs to disclose material facts affecting transparency, though non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. On these facts, the plan was rightly rejected and liquidation confirmed.
Section 31 review of a resolution plan is limited to statutory compliance and procedural fairness; the Adjudicating Authority cannot reappraise CoC commercial wisdom unless the record shows opacity, incomplete disclosure or abuse of CIRP. The Tribunal found the Information Memorandum and process defective because asset values fell, liabilities disappeared, and no proper audit or meaningful disclosure explained the changes or addressed possible avoidance issues. It also recognised an implied duty on a creditor involved in parallel CIRPs to disclose material facts affecting transparency, though non-disclosure is not automatically fatal. On these facts, the plan was rightly rejected and liquidation confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
