Rinki Suraj Singh

SAT-appeal

• SAT matter SATV-15D79DC9DF01B9A3017AD629
  Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 638 to 641 of 2019 were rejected as patently misconceived and a misuse of the court process.
  Appeal: Appeals against the Recovery Officer's order were dismissed by SAT on 16 April 2019; review applications were dismissed on 17 July 2019; the applicants' Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 21 October 2019.
• Non-payment of SEBI penalties and alleged dishonest transfer or concealment of property to obstruct recovery, supporting arrest and detention proceedings.
  Appeals challenged the Recovery Officer's order dated 20 April 2015 and attachment order dated 2 December 2015. · The extracted text does not include the final operative disposal directions.
  Appeal: SAT Appeal No.284 of 2015, along with Appeals Nos.23, 24, 25 and 382 of 2016; reserved 8 April 2019 and decision dated 16 April 2019. Final disposal is not included in the extracted text.
• SAT matter SATV-49407BD3DC81C2A01214335C
  Misc. Applications rejected as patently misconceived and not allowable · Applications held to be misuse of process of the Court/Tribunal
  Appeal: Appeals against Recovery Officer dismissed 16.04.2019 in Appeal No.284/2015 and companions; Review dismissed 17.07.2019; Civil Appeal dismissed by Supreme Court 21.10.2019
• SAT matter SATV-9468B61FE309D8BB44D9BD79
  Misc. Applications Nos. 638-641 of 2019 rejected as patently misconceived · Applications held to be misuse of process of Court
  Appeal: Misc. Applications 638-641 of 2019 in Appeals 23,24,25,382 of 2016 rejected on 16.03.2020; prior appeals dismissed 16.04.2019, review 17.07.2019, SC civil appeal dismissed 21.10.2019
• SAT matter SATV-40B7D6792B2DA3876CFC3D59
  Review Applications Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2019 were rejected · The Tribunal declined to interfere with its earlier orders
  Appeal: Review Applications Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2019, arising in Appeals Nos. 382, 23, 24 and 25 of 2016, rejected on 17 July 2019
• SAT matter SATV-A58F8BC670AC216E9E731EDC
  Misc. Applications Nos. 638, 639, 640, 641 of 2019 rejected as patently misconceived · Prayer to pay lump sum of Rs 22 lakhs within reasonable time not allowed
  Appeal: Misc. Appl. Nos. 638-641 of 2019 in Appeals 23,24,25,382 of 2016 rejected on 16.03.2020; prior Appeals incl. 284/2015 dismissed 16.04.2019; Review dismissed 17.07.2019; Supreme Court Civil Appeal dismissed 21.10.2019
• Failure to pay 2010 PFUTP/PIT penalties and alleged dishonest transfer of property to obstruct recovery certificates plus having means to pay yet refusing.
• Violation of PFUTP and PIT Regulations leading to penalties; subsequent charge of dishonestly transferring property and refusing to pay despite means to obstruct recovery under Section 28A.
• Failure to pay 2010 PFUTP/PIT penalties and alleged dishonest transfer of Flat D-63 to obstruct recovery despite having means to pay.
  Recovery Officer order dated 20 April 2015 directed Vinod Hingorani to pay Rs.30 lakh within four weeks failing which arrest · Recovery Officer attachment order dated 2 December 2015 attached Flat A-1101 Dev Paradise for dues of Vinod Hingorani
  Appeal: Appeal No.284/2015 with Appeal Nos.23,24,25/2016 and 382/2016 reserved on 8.4.2019, decided on 16.4.2019
• Failure to pay 2010 PFUTP/PIT penalties and alleged dishonest transfer of properties to obstruct recovery certificates despite having means to pay.
  Recovery Officer order dated 20 April 2015 directed pay Rs 30 lakh within four weeks failing arrest in execution · Recovery Officer attachment order dated 2 December 2015 attached Flat A1101 Dev Paradise for Vinod Hingorani dues