Habeas corpus challenge to arrest safeguards remains maintainable, but substantial compliance with reasons-to-believe requirement defeats the petition...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3081 to 3100 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that appellants could not later complain of lack of notice or hearing where they were represented by counsel when the interlocutory applications were taken up, since knowledge of the proceedings and an opportunity to object were attributable to them. It further upheld exclusion of 208 days from the personal guarantor insolvency resolution process, ruling that the period spent in earlier appeals could be excluded to give effect to prior appellate directions and that the statutory time limit operates as a moratorium-related provision, not as a bar on exclusion of time for effective continuation of the process. The exclusion was treated as a procedural measure and the appeals were dismissed.
The NCLAT held that appellants could not later complain of lack of notice or hearing where they were represented by counsel when the interlocutory applications were taken up, since knowledge of the proceedings and an opportunity to object were attributable to them. It further upheld exclusion of 208 days from the personal guarantor insolvency resolution process, ruling that the period spent in earlier appeals could be excluded to give effect to prior appellate directions and that the statutory time limit operates as a moratorium-related provision, not as a bar on exclusion of time for effective continuation of the process. The exclusion was treated as a procedural measure and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.