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" ?
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.