Company Law : Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching t...
Company Law : Liquidator, in discharge of duties under Section 35, was entitled to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debto...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is a valid notice of invocation of personal guarantee ...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that termination of contract not triggered by the insolvency of Corporate Debtor and therefore not barred by mora...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the I...
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan of Unijules Life Sciences Limited [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by S.S. Fabricators & Manufacturers P. Ltd. [Successful Resolution Applicant] approved since it is duly approved by CoC and also meets requirement of Section 30(2) of the IBC.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator duly allowed to remove all the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased premises since appellant/lessor never raised any objection regarding ownership of assets either during CIRP or during liquidation proceeding.
Gujarat High Court held that it would not be appropriate to invoke its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case involving possession and control of assets with corporate debtor during liquidation.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that Corporate Debtor [Shree Ram Cottex Industries Pvt. Ltd.] is admitted into liquidation in terms of provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in view of rejection of resolution plan u/s. 31(2) for non-compliance with statutory requirements.
Gauhati High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 without issuing Form GST ASMT-10 as prescribed under section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 is invalid. Accordingly, held that action is contrary to the provisions of law.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of wages and salaries after the issuance of the layoff notice rightly rejected since the appellant workmen due to issuance of the layoff notice has not worked after issuance of this layoff notice. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Bombay High Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 55(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal, acting as an Appellate Authority, certainly had powers to modify the order of part payment passed in First Appeal while hearing the Second Appeal.
