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...
In Section 95 insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation under Article 137 had to be assessed from the actual invocation of guarantee and the date of default, not from the Form B demand notice. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating Form B as invocation, and noted that a decree obtained within limitation could furnish a fresh cause of action. It also found the limitation computation flawed because Covid-related exclusion days were deducted without adequate basis. Letters dated 17.03.2022 and 12.07.2022, and admission of the creditor's claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP, were material on acknowledgment and limitation but had not been properly considered, so the matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned decision.
In Section 95 insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors, limitation under Article 137 had to be assessed from the actual invocation of guarantee and the date of default, not from the Form B demand notice. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in treating Form B as invocation, and noted that a decree obtained within limitation could furnish a fresh cause of action. It also found the limitation computation flawed because Covid-related exclusion days were deducted without adequate basis. Letters dated 17.03.2022 and 12.07.2022, and admission of the creditor's claim in the corporate debtor's CIRP, were material on acknowledgment and limitation but had not been properly considered, so the matter was remanded for fresh, reasoned decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
