NCLT Mumbai held that application u/s. 123 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Bankruptcy Process against Personal Guarantor admitted as all the requirements of section 123 complied. Accordingly, Kapil Wadhawan [personal guarantor of DHFL] is declared Bankrupt.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application u/s. 7(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process [CIRP] against Corporate Guarantor admitted as default duly proved.
Department of Consumer Affairs is seeking public comments on a draft amendment to Legal Metrology rules, proposing a fixed validity period for model approval certificates for weights and measures.
NCLT Chandigarh held that application u/s. 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for the initiation of the liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor [Hoshiar Nirvair Tractors Private Limited] stands approved as no resolution plan was received even after publication of Form G twice.
Due to ongoing protests, the ICAI has postponed its CA exams on Sep 9 & 10, 2025, for candidates in Kathmandu, Nepal. New dates will be announced.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non prosecution. CIT(A) remains under statutory obligation to dismiss appeal on merits. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Held that the liability of the corporate guarantor is co-extensive with the principal borrower, and accordingly, both the principal borrower and corporate guarantor are equally liable for the default. Accordingly, CIRP application u/s. 7 of IBC allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
ITAT Chennai dismisses an appeal, ruling that a property sale is subject to a pre-existing equitable mortgage, validating a bank’s action under SARFAESI Act.
Delhi High Court held that one day’s notice for hearing is completely violative of principles of natural justice. Also held that GST department needs to ensure that reasonably sufficient time is granted for furnishing reply. Thus, afforded 30 days time to file reply to GST SCN.
