Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
An appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found invalidly instituted where it was filed and refiled without the certified copy of the impugned order and without seeking exemption from producing it. The SC held that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires the certified copy to accompany every appeal, and non-compliance goes to the root of institution rather than constituting a curable refiling defect. Because the appellant had not applied for the certified copy within limitation and had shown no diligence, the NCLAT was required first to verify valid institution before considering delay. Its failure to do so vitiated the condonation order, which was set aside.
An appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was found invalidly instituted where it was filed and refiled without the certified copy of the impugned order and without seeking exemption from producing it. The SC held that Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires the certified copy to accompany every appeal, and non-compliance goes to the root of institution rather than constituting a curable refiling defect. Because the appellant had not applied for the certified copy within limitation and had shown no diligence, the NCLAT was required first to verify valid institution before considering delay. Its failure to do so vitiated the condonation order, which was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.