The Disciplinary Committee held that reconstituting the CoC without prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority violates established legal principles. Subsequent approval does not cure the initial procedural breach. The decision underscores limits on the powers of resolution professionals.
A key land asset was excluded from the CIRP, leading to rejection of the resolution plan. The regulator held that failure to include and regularize ownership violated duties and warranted suspension.
The case highlights failure to provide complete and verifiable information in the Information Memorandum. It also underscores that reliance on external systems like VDR does not replace statutory disclosure obligations.
A claim submitted without documents was later verified after the deadline but not processed as per law. The authority held that failure to place it before CoC and seek condonation violated CIRP regulations.
The IBBI flagged improper admission of a joint developer as a financial creditor without adequate verification. The ruling highlights the need to correctly classify claims under insolvency law.
If a Scheduled caste person converted to any other religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, he immediately loses the membership of the Scheduled Caste status. In this, the Court also explained that if such a person re-converted to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, then he had to establish conclusive proof of the following, to re-claim SC status.
RBI designated a Lead Bank for the newly formed district to ensure banking coordination. The key takeaway is structured implementation of the Lead Bank Scheme.
In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal admissibility and evidentiary value.
The government has kept small savings interest rates unchanged for April–June 2026, ensuring continued stable returns for investors.
Excise exemption notifications based on use or intended use should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee as once the goods were used for the intended purposethe fact that a portion was incidentally used for other activities did not disentitle assessee from claiming the exemption.
