Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A fresh claim for possession of premises in liquidation was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because the later application was virtually identical to the earlier rejected one and no liberty had been reserved to re-agitate it. On merits, the HC held that summary jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Companies Act is confined to whether the Official Liquidator has a relevant reason to remain in possession. As liquidation was continuing and the premises were still being used, continued retention was justified, and the applicant could not compel surrender of vested tenancy rights or conversion to a leave and licence arrangement. The application was dismissed with costs.
A fresh claim for possession of premises in liquidation was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel because the later application was virtually identical to the earlier rejected one and no liberty had been reserved to re-agitate it. On merits, the HC held that summary jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Companies Act is confined to whether the Official Liquidator has a relevant reason to remain in possession. As liquidation was continuing and the premises were still being used, continued retention was justified, and the applicant could not compel surrender of vested tenancy rights or conversion to a leave and licence arrangement. The application was dismissed with costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
