Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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.