Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.