Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A High Court held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 imposes a strict bar on shifting a company's registered office where an appeal against the approved resolution plan is pending, and that Section 238 of the IBC does not override this restriction. The Court read the proviso as creating an independent threshold, found the Regional Director acted beyond jurisdiction in permitting the shift, and set aside the Regional Director's order as well as the Single Judge's order. It also held that the appellants could maintain the writ petition because they were heard in the proceedings, were aggrieved by the impugned order, and had no efficacious alternative remedy.
A High Court held that the second proviso to Rule 30(9) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 imposes a strict bar on shifting a company's registered office where an appeal against the approved resolution plan is pending, and that Section 238 of the IBC does not override this restriction. The Court read the proviso as creating an independent threshold, found the Regional Director acted beyond jurisdiction in permitting the shift, and set aside the Regional Director's order as well as the Single Judge's order. It also held that the appellants could maintain the writ petition because they were heard in the proceedings, were aggrieved by the impugned order, and had no efficacious alternative remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
