Punishment for contempt of orders of this Tribunal - the ...

Tribunal Orders Respondents to Pay Rs. 5.5 Crore Plus 18% Interest for Contempt and Non-Compliance with Orders.

June 13, 2022

Case Laws Companies Law Tri

Punishment for contempt of orders of this Tribunal - the Respondents had no right under the compromise memo not to comply with the undertaking to discharge its dues to ARCIL, or disregard the orders passed by this Tribunal. In any case, the Respondents are bound to comply with the directions/orders of this Tribunal. - The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by this Tribunal - The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are directed to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 5.5 Crore to the Petitioner together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order - Tri

View Source

← Previous Next →

Punishment for contempt of orders of this Tribunal - the ...

Tribunal Orders Respondents to Pay Rs. 5.5 Crore Plus 18% Interest for Contempt and Non-Compliance with Orders.

June 13, 2022

Case Laws Companies Law Tri

You may also like:

Sub-section (1) in Section 5 amended to not levy integrated tax on Extra Neutral Alcohol used for manufacturing alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Section 6A...

The applicant is required to pay GST on the charges paid to Indian Railways for various services received, as the applicant is the recipient of these services from...

Nexus between loans taken from SBH and PNB initially advanced to Nandan Corporation and subsequently transferred Rs. 5 crore from Nandan Corporation to Tripoli...

The appeal challenged the maintainability of an application filed u/s 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking refund of an amount deposited as part of a...

The Lok Sabha passed the Finance Bill 2025 with 35 government amendments, including the abolition of a 6% digital tax on online advertisements. This completes the lower...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of levying interest u/s 234B in proceedings u/s 147/148. The AO had enhanced the interest from the date of the original...

Contempt application preferred by the appellant alleging non-compliance of order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court - entitlement to refund of the...

CESTAT allowed appeal against multiple service tax demands totaling Rs.1.83 crores. Primary demands included non-reversal of CENVAT credit on exempted services (Rs.1.00...

Penalty u/s 271B - no tax audit conducted u/s 44AB - bonafide belief - When Gross profit is more than Rs.4 crores, it means the Gross Receipts were definitely more than...

Non-payment of interest on refund u/s 18(4) of the Customs Act 1962 upon finalization of provisional assessment was challenged. Upon completion of the specified import...

The case involved a dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on...

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the AO's disallowance of gold hire charges. The Tribunal found that the assessee company had valid Gold Hire Agreements...

IGST Rate Schedule u/s 5(1) - notifying rates of IGST @ 5%, 12%, 18%, 28%, 3% and 0.25% - As amended by notification dated 18-8-2017

Validity of revised return 139(5) - Revised return did not conform to the prescription of section 139(5), before its substitution w.e.f. A.Y. 2017-18, which provided for...

The case involved a claim for refund of interest u/s 72 of Finance Act, 2010 to benefit from a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/2004. The Tribunal held...

Quick Updates: