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...
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.