Resolution Professional’s job is confined to making recommendations; there is no aspect of adjudication on the Resolution Professional’s behalf. The final decision on whether the application should be accepted or rejected is made by the Adjudicating Authority, which is not bound by the Resolution Professional’s advice.
The petitioner, while thus admitting creation of third party rights, proposes adjudication of its right to recover possession of the subject apartments in the absence of these third parties.
Institute of Chartered Accountant of India Vs Shri. P.P. jay (Karnataka High Court) ICAI submitted that the report of the Institute be accepted as the respondent has been found to be guilty of grave misconduct and the penalty has been imposed on the respondent commensurate to the misconduct, which has been proved. None has appeared […]
Shel Singh Purohit Vs Commercial Taxes Officer (Karnataka High Court) The text of provision of Sec. 129 of the Act provides for detention of the goods along with the transport vehicle and Sec.130 provides for the confiscation of the same on certain grounds, as contended by learned AGA is true; however, sub-section (2) of Sec. […]
PCIT Vs Cherian Abraham (Karnataka High Court) The undisputed facts are that the search was conducted in the case of a search person on 06.02.2012. Pursuant to which Section 153C proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Notice under Section 142[1] was issued on 12.09.2013 calling the assessee to file the return. Reply was filed on […]
Kumaresh K Vs Union Of India and Other (Karnataka High Court) It is evident that Section 14(1)(v) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) provides that an application which may be submitted by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by authorized […]
The issue of limitation for the first time is raised before the Appellate Court and the Court exercising the discretion to condone the delay did not arise at all before the Trial Court and hence I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court has not committed any error in setting aside the judgment and directing the complainant to file necessary application to condone the delay and the Trial Court by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to consider the said application.
CTI Future Corporation Vs Ducgiang Chemical And Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company (Karnataka High Court) The arbitral award being an international commercial arbitral award is not in dispute, the award being rendered in Singapore is not in dispute, the enforceability of the said award in India is not in dispute in view of the notification […]
Nanjappa Vs State By Chikkajala Police Station (Karnataka High Court) (ii) The following guidelines are given to the registry and also to the District Courts all over the State to evolve mechanism with modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the Court and verify every application for being filed for regular or anticipatory […]
High Court held that Work from home after availing the maternity benefit could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the woman is such that it is possible for her to work from home.
