Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
