HC Held that respondent-bank (SIDBI) cannot withdraw from offer of One-time Settlement which is already accepted by the petitioner/ borrower.
Held that ex parte order of ad interim injunction granted before notice to opposite party under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX C.P.C.. cannot be treated at part with other ex parte orders/decree.
Held that ad-interim injunction provided from the use of TATA in website tatabonus.com; crypto products by the name of $TATA or any other product being sold on the website www.hakunamatata.finance.
SC Held that the numerical strength of the Judges taking a particular view is not relevant, but the Bench strength is determinative of the binding nature of the Judgment.
Held that the voting share in the CoC is extremely relevant and important element in the CIRP. Resolution Professional needs to verify and scrutinize the documents submitted with Form C before admitting/ accepting claim of financial creditors.
Held that the initiation of winding up proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT under Section 7 of the IBC.
Held that penalty u/s 112(a) imposed on customs broker is justified as importer of undeclared goods and undervalued goods is not traceable and the address as well as GST registration reflected in the documents are found to be fake.
Held that benefit of exemption under notification dated 20.07.2010 is available if the taxable services are rendered for transmission/ distribution of electricity.
Held that as per agreement, the assessee will hand over physical possession of the property only after the purchaser obtains Intimation of Disapproval. Hence, till the property is not transferred as per the terms of agreement, capital gain on the same cannot be taxed.
Held that penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act cannot be imposed if the assessee has not dealt with or transported goods physically in any manner.
