NCLT admits Go Air insolvency plea
A creditor has limited grounds to object to S. 10 of IBC application.
Continue reading
A creditor has limited grounds to object to S. 10 of IBC application.
Continue reading
The Tribunal noted that while developing housing projects in Ghaziabad, the Project Proponents violated environmental norms for plantations and sewage treatment plan.
Continue reading
ITAT said that the entire addition has been made by the AO as well as CIT based on guess work and estimation based on some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT that “the assessee has taken bogus purchase bills without having taken any delivery of the goods”, without applying their mind.
Continue reading
NCLT imposed cost to restain Trimex Industries (P) Ltd. from filing frivolous applications which consume Tribunal’s valuable resources and time.
Continue reading
The Tribunal constituted an eight-member fact-finding Joint Committee about the incident headed by Chairman of the State Pollution Control Board, Punjab.
Continue reading
The Commission found that the management of Galleria Cinemas was negligent for not ensuring proper hygienic conditions for their viewers.
Continue reading
There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.
Continue reading
“Any settlement after passing of the impugned order and after constitution of the CoC is only permissible when the same is approved with 90% vote share of CoC.”
Continue reading
The opening of the Atal Tunnel or availability of parking space is not sufficient ground to increase the number of vehicles allowed to Rohtang Pass.
Continue reading
The National Green Tribunal said that an environment free from noise pollution is necessary, but operation of railways is an essential activity, and must be conducted.
Continue reading
The Commission observed that Malayalis have sentimental attachment towards ‘Thiruonam Sadya’; therefore, waiting for a long time and eventually not getting the ‘Sadya’ can be quite frustrating.
Continue reading
The scope and objective of the Code is ‘Resolution’, and not a ‘Recovery Mode / Forum’.
Continue reading
“…penalty @1% of the turnover for each year of continuance of the cartel would be appropriate penalty in keeping with the extent and seriousness proportionality of the anti-competitive behavior of Geep Industries.”.
Continue reading
National Green Tribunal said that the State has to take precautions to prevent such incidents in future, apart from paying compensation with liberty to recover the same from the entity.
Continue reading
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that no pre-existing dispute regarding quality of supplied goods exist as the same was not raised before consumption of the goods.
Continue reading
NCLAT held that the application preferred by the appellants in the second appeal under S. 7 IBC has rightly been held to be not maintainable and was rightly relegated to avail their remedy of filing the application under S. 9 IBC in relation to invoice discounting of the receivables by the seller.
Continue reading
If the business entity involved in hazardous activities fails to pay compensation, the State is liable to pay for the failure to ensure safety. Citizens are entitled to safety from hazards of business activities having potential for incidents which may cause death and injuries.
Continue reading
NCLAT held that that the allocation of meagre amount in Resolution Plan to Creditors can be questioned when the plan value earmarked for them is less than the liquidation value but same is not the case in instant matter.
Continue reading
It is a trite law that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 IT Act.
Continue reading
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that as per S. 61(2) every appeal must be filed within 30 days before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days if it is satisfied that there is a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
Continue reading