Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, intervention by a third party is not warranted merely because it claims an interest under an unregistered agreement for sale. The Appellate Tribunal held that Order I Rule 10 CPC principles may guide, but do not directly govern, the Code; the relevant inquiry is whether the person is a necessary or proper party to adjudication of the financial creditor's claim against the corporate debtor on default. Because the appellant held no conveyance and its claim, if any, lay only against the corporate debtor, it had no legal status requiring impleadment. The refusal to intervene was upheld.
In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, intervention by a third party is not warranted merely because it claims an interest under an unregistered agreement for sale. The Appellate Tribunal held that Order I Rule 10 CPC principles may guide, but do not directly govern, the Code; the relevant inquiry is whether the person is a necessary or proper party to adjudication of the financial creditor's claim against the corporate debtor on default. Because the appellant held no conveyance and its claim, if any, lay only against the corporate debtor, it had no legal status requiring impleadment. The refusal to intervene was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.