The article discusses concerns over inconsistent expert reports, ad hoc committees, and relaxed evidentiary standards in NGT proceedings. It warns that weak scientific scrutiny may compromise the credibility of environmental adjudication.
The Delhi High Court upheld restraint on a company’s move to remove a director because the special notice only made vague allegations without disclosing particulars. The Court held that statutory rights under Section 169 require meaningful grounds and opportunity of representation.
NCLT Kochi held that shareholders have a statutory right to convene an EGM and remove directors through ordinary resolution if legal procedures are followed. The Tribunal ruled that such removal did not amount to oppression or mismanagement.
The Bombay High Court held that statements made in Special Notices for removal of a director under the Companies Act formed part of a statutory corporate process and were not per se defamatory.
AO observed an imbalance: the investor companies brought in massive investments but received a minimal percentage of equity, while the promoters retained overwhelming majority control despite investing a lower proportionate amount (Rs. 45 crores)
The Court held that a shareholder holding requisite voting strength has a statutory right under Section 169 to convene an extraordinary general meeting if the board fails to act.
The High Court reiterated that separate assessment orders are required for separate financial years under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The combined order for 2018-19 and 2019-20 was quashed.
The Rajasthan High Court condoned a 216-day delay in filing a GST appeal after finding that prolonged illness and financial difficulties prevented timely filing. The Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits.
The Karnataka High Court directed fresh adjudication after the petitioner submitted e-way bill details, vehicle numbers, and ledger accounts to explain alleged mismatches in Input Tax Credit claims.
The Madras High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 of the GST enactments cannot be imposed where a specific late fee provision exists under Section 47. The Court quashed the penalty portion of the GST order relating to delayed annual return filing.
