Summon Order - Wrongfully withholding the companies’ property - ...

High Court Quashes Summons in Property Dispute Due to Lack of Judicial Consideration; MoU Ownership Claims Unresolved.

August 23, 2022

Case Laws Companies Law HC

Summon Order - Wrongfully withholding the companies’ property - non-application of judicial mind - As it can be seen from the facts that the fate of the property in dispute is not yet determined, the rival parties are claiming rights over the property in dispute on the basis of the MoU. Till date, neither the petitioner nor the respondent/complainant has the clear title or ownership over the subject property. There is no sale deed in their favour. The suit for specific performance of contract filed by them against original vendee is still pending. - the order of summoning of the petitioner, at this stage, is illegal and the same deserves to be quashed - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Summon Order - Wrongfully withholding the companies’ property - ...

High Court Quashes Summons in Property Dispute Due to Lack of Judicial Consideration; MoU Ownership Claims Unresolved.

August 23, 2022

Case Laws Companies Law HC

You may also like:

Benami transaction - possession of a significant amount of cash - Validity of summoning order - The High Court found merit in the applicant's arguments, emphasizing the...

Sale of mortgaged property for recovery of excise dues - Excise dues are not dues which arise out of land or building. Such liabilities could be in the form of property...

Family dispute over management of a Company - It cannot be disputed that the Company’s Article of Associations (AoA) is more powerful than the MOU and that too not...

The High Court examined the validity of the summoning order and framing of notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a dishonor of cheque case. It...

The Supreme Court held that the dispensation regarding Prevention of Money Laundering, Attachment of Proceeds of Crime, and Inquiry/Investigation of offence of Money...

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer was vitiated due to a lack of...

The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not...

Addition u/s 56/68 - Unexplained credit in capital account - advances received by assessee for sale of the property against MOU - We notice that the AO has not expressed...

Appellant Directorate attached 29 properties in a benami transaction case. Adjudicating Authority excluded properties bought in the name of a family member, shifting...

Income from house property - ALV u/s 23(1)(a) - In determining the reasonable rent, several factors have to be taken into consideration, such as, location of the...

Accrual of income - An income from the MOU/lease agreement cannot be said to have accrued or arisen or become legally due to assessee till the time the underlying...

Assessee utilized long-term capital gain from sale of immovable property for purchase of new residential property within permissible time period. Purchase consideration...

Debts due to secured creditors under SARFAESI Act have priority over debts under FEMA. SARFAESI Act being a later enactment prevails over earlier FEMA. SARFAESI Act...

The case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The...

Quick Updates: