Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4817 
Join Channel 
