Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A sanctioned scheme of arrangement assigning specified creditors' claims to the 63 Moons Group was held binding on all specified creditors, including dissenters, because the claims pursued in the civil suits arose from the same NSEL payment default and fell within the scheme. Once the settlement trigger event occurred, those claims, including claims against consenting brokers, stood assigned to the assignee, so the appellants could not continue independent civil proceedings for covered claims. The Tribunal also refused to revisit the scheme's legality, noting that earlier orders upholding it had already attained finality and were affirmed on merits by the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed.
A sanctioned scheme of arrangement assigning specified creditors' claims to the 63 Moons Group was held binding on all specified creditors, including dissenters, because the claims pursued in the civil suits arose from the same NSEL payment default and fell within the scheme. Once the settlement trigger event occurred, those claims, including claims against consenting brokers, stood assigned to the assignee, so the appellants could not continue independent civil proceedings for covered claims. The Tribunal also refused to revisit the scheme's legality, noting that earlier orders upholding it had already attained finality and were affirmed on merits by the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.