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 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A resolution plan was rejected because material non-compliances in the CIRP, including inadequate disclosure of avoidance/PUFE transactions, non-transparent handling of those proceedings, and lapses in performance security, undermined the fairness of the process. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom could not cure defects where other applicants were deprived of material information and the plan proceeded on incomplete disclosure. It also upheld adverse findings against the erstwhile resolution professional, noting unsatisfactory explanations for failures in dealing with avoidance applications and security compliance. Both appeals were dismissed, and the direction to investigate the resolution professional's conduct was maintained.
A resolution plan was rejected because material non-compliances in the CIRP, including inadequate disclosure of avoidance/PUFE transactions, non-transparent handling of those proceedings, and lapses in performance security, undermined the fairness of the process. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom could not cure defects where other applicants were deprived of material information and the plan proceeded on incomplete disclosure. It also upheld adverse findings against the erstwhile resolution professional, noting unsatisfactory explanations for failures in dealing with avoidance applications and security compliance. Both appeals were dismissed, and the direction to investigate the resolution professional's conduct was maintained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
