CoCs decision to reject appellants plan and initiate liquidation under Section 33 of Code was warranted, as appellants defaults prompted CoC, acting in its commercial wisdom, to take this course of action hence, fora rightly upheld CoCs decision with voting percentage of 99.61% against appellants plans.
Court emphasizes necessity of fair and lawful adjudication process, maintaining statutory burden of proof under 1946 Act while ensuring that any designation of person as foreigner adheres to legal and constitutional principles of fairness hence, impugned judgments and orders passed by High Court are set aside.
Inclusion of nominated members under Section 352(1)(b) of KMA in electoral roll for Local Authorities was unconstitutional, as it violated constitutional framework.
Previous orders from NCLT and NCLAT are set aside and original application is restored for further proceedings hence, NCLT is instructed to manage this application swiftly, ideally within two weeks, while maintaining current status quo until then.
Order of Appellate Tribunal set aside and IRP would be entitled to proceed and interim direction to keep management in loop of day-to-day affairs, stands vacated.
Court granted an additional three months for completion, emphasizing verification of work quality by officials and if not completed in this timeframe, work will be re-tendered at current market rates.
Appeal was inherently incompetent and un-maintainable due to expiration of limitation period under Section 61(2) of Code hence, NCLAT erred grievously in permitting such an exercise to be undertaken and adjudicating appeal on merits thereafter.
Respondents failed to adhere to due diligence mandated by 1996 Regulations, particularly in not segregating portfolios as required by 2018 Circular hence, appeals are rejected with no grounds for interference in imposed penalties.
There is no justification for interference with current orders and High Court is encouraged to address issues independently and expeditiously and statements made are solely for purposes of current adjudication and do not reflect any opinion on merits of case.
Court emphasized maintaining status quo of property and directed NCLT to expedite proceedings, with all parties required to appear on 19.03.2026 and preferred decision timeframe of two months for Company Petition.
Anti-suit injunction should not be issued as proceedings in UK Family Court had not concluded, highlighting an error by Alipore Trial Court for ignoring this key aspect hence, impugned judgment passed by High Court allowing the appeal, setting aside order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Suit and vacating anti-suit injunction, is eminently just and legal.
High Court justified in upholding Family Courts findings, noting that appellant had provided an undertaking to maintain harmony but later exhibited conduct indicative of cruelty, as evidenced by her sons testimony expressing unwillingness to live with her.
Appellant, as consumer procuring electricity for personal use, is subject to payment of cross-subsidy and surcharges as mandated by Electricity Act.
Provisional assessment can only be upheld if report explicitly documents evidence of theft and report in question does not allow for conclusive determination of theft and lacks necessary material evidence, as outlined in Regulation 11.8.
Maintenance for children is increased to total of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- per child) effective from 1st January 2025, allowing for future adjustments based on changing circumstances.
Respondent no. 1 is deemed a member of appellant company, supported by substantial evidence of proprietary interest, validating High Courts decision to include him in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of Act.
Ombudsman directed that any deposits made against demand be adjusted to future bills and Appellant contested this in a High Court writ petition, which upheld Ombudsmans decision, reaffirming that demands issuance post-2003 was improper and that no continuous recovery of sum was evidenced.
As burden of proof was not met, n-Hexane is confirmed as separate chemical compound with no impurities added hence, impugned order of CESTAT stands affirmed.
Marriage between parties is dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of Act and Appellant-husband shall pay sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards permanent alimony to respondent-wife.
Auction sales validity was never substantially questioned in previous cases and therefore courts below erred in invalidating auction sale of 18.03.1996 due to claims of unfairness and illegality, which cannot be upheld in law.
You were logged out of this device because this account is also signed in on another device, and that device asked this one to sign out.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer