<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (3) TMI 990 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451209</link>
    <description>Calcutta HC upheld a wilful defaulter declaration where the record showed revenue was earned but not routed through the lending bank, sale proceeds were parked in another account, and rights over tea sale proceeds forming part of the secured corpus were transferred without consent. The Court held that the review committee was not required to give a fresh elaborate restatement of reasons when it concurred on the material before it, and judicial review was limited to cases of no evidence, perversity, or patent irregularity. It further held that an ongoing insolvency process, a one-time settlement, and claimed financial losses did not negate earlier wilful default or the diversion and disposal of secured assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 990 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451209</link>
      <description>Calcutta HC upheld a wilful defaulter declaration where the record showed revenue was earned but not routed through the lending bank, sale proceeds were parked in another account, and rights over tea sale proceeds forming part of the secured corpus were transferred without consent. The Court held that the review committee was not required to give a fresh elaborate restatement of reasons when it concurred on the material before it, and judicial review was limited to cases of no evidence, perversity, or patent irregularity. It further held that an ongoing insolvency process, a one-time settlement, and claimed financial losses did not negate earlier wilful default or the diversion and disposal of secured assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>