Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Section 95 insolvency proceedings are confined to the individual personal guarantor named in the application, and the creditor may choose the respondent. A person who is neither a guarantor in that proceeding nor a party to the guarantee contract is not a necessary party and has no right of intervention, recall, or stay merely because he asserts coparcenary or succession claims in the property of another deceased guarantor. Those private property claims must be pursued in independent civil remedies, not decided within Section 95 proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal therefore dismissed the company appeals and upheld rejection of the intervention and consequential applications.
Section 95 insolvency proceedings are confined to the individual personal guarantor named in the application, and the creditor may choose the respondent. A person who is neither a guarantor in that proceeding nor a party to the guarantee contract is not a necessary party and has no right of intervention, recall, or stay merely because he asserts coparcenary or succession claims in the property of another deceased guarantor. Those private property claims must be pursued in independent civil remedies, not decided within Section 95 proceedings. The Appellate Tribunal therefore dismissed the company appeals and upheld rejection of the intervention and consequential applications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
