Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Section 32A was applied to protect the corporate debtor's property from attachment where an approved resolution plan had been implemented with a qualifying change in management. The Tribunal, following Manish Kumar, held that statutory immunity extends to property covered by the approved plan for offences committed before commencement of CIRP, so long as control passes to persons unconnected with the erstwhile management and not shown to have abetted or conspired in the offence. It rejected the argument that PMLA attachment could continue merely because the property was alleged to be proceeds of crime, and also noted that the underlying claim had already been finally rejected in insolvency proceedings. The attachment orders were set aside.
Section 32A was applied to protect the corporate debtor's property from attachment where an approved resolution plan had been implemented with a qualifying change in management. The Tribunal, following Manish Kumar, held that statutory immunity extends to property covered by the approved plan for offences committed before commencement of CIRP, so long as control passes to persons unconnected with the erstwhile management and not shown to have abetted or conspired in the offence. It rejected the argument that PMLA attachment could continue merely because the property was alleged to be proceeds of crime, and also noted that the underlying claim had already been finally rejected in insolvency proceedings. The attachment orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.