Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 59 (0.74 seconds)Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private ... vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction ... on 13 April, 2021
38. Having in depth analysed the legal position and
the above referred case-laws in extenso, the position
as explained with reference to Rule 22 and Rule 41 of
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss
Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (supra), the SOP
prescribed by the C.B.I.C. dated 23.05.2022 referred
to supra and the Resolution Plan as approved by the
NCLT (extracted copy of which has been presented
before us by the appellant-company), we are of the
considered view that the present appeals, therefore,
abate. With the abatement of the appeals, the
Tribunal is rendered functus officio in matters relating
to these appeals.
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 15 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai-I on 17 April, 2017
"3.1 We find that the Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT, in the
case of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Service Tax-V, Mumbai & anor. In Final Order No.
A/85896-85897/2023 dated 12.05.2023, has referred to
an earlier order of the CESTAT in Final Order No.
26 - Service Tax Appeal No. 42474 of 2014 - Final Order No. 40066 of 2024 dated
18.01.2024 - CESTAT, Chennai
Page 45 of 56
Appeal No(s).