Maintainability of a Section 7 insolvency petition against a financial service provider denied; appeal dismissed for non maintainability and complex d...
Provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires exhaustion of statutory remedies; impugned order set aside, appeal to tribuna...
Restoration of property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act after attachment dispute rendered academic; possession directed to successful resolut...
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Review jurisdiction was exercised to reopen earlier Tribunal orders because the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench order recalling Ganpati Dealcom and granting liberty to seek review was treated as binding. The Tribunal held it had no competence to disregard that order or treat it as per incuriam, and a contrary Gauhati High Court view could not override binding Supreme Court precedent. On the Tribunal's earlier reasoning regarding review and delay, the review petitions were entertained, the delay in filing was condoned, and the matters were reopened.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
