Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.