Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Insolvency and Bankruptcy

        2018 (12) TMI 1686 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal admits CIRP application, appoints IRP, imposes moratorium. Respondent's claims not valid disputes. The Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent due to default in payment. ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal admits CIRP application, appoints IRP, imposes moratorium. Respondent's claims not valid disputes.

                            The Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent due to default in payment. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed, and a moratorium was imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Respondent's claims of quality disputes, warranty, and excise benefit withholding were not considered valid disputes under the IBC. The Applicant was directed to pay expenses to the IRP, and the order was communicated to relevant parties and authorities.




                            Issues Involved: Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Default in Payment, Quality Dispute, Warranty and Excise Benefit Withholding, Admissibility of Dispute under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):
                            The Applicant, M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd., filed an application against the Respondent, M/s Micromax Energy Ltd., seeking to initiate CIRP under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for an alleged default in clearing dues amounting to Rs. 88,48,294/- towards the supply of batteries. The Respondent had initially agreed to pay each invoice within 30 days from receipt, failing which an interest of 15% p.a. would be applicable.

                            2. Default in Payment:
                            The Applicant supplied batteries as per purchase orders issued by the Respondent and raised invoices for payment. Initially, payments were made timely, but post-August 2017, the Respondent started withholding payments. Despite acknowledging a balance payment of Rs. 2,73,94,780/- in an email dated 03.11.2017, the Respondent only paid Rs. 1,84,41,385/- and failed to clear the remaining Rs. 88,48,294/-. The Applicant issued a demand notice on 04.01.2018 under Section 8 of the IBC, which the Respondent did not act upon within the prescribed 10 days.

                            3. Quality Dispute:
                            The Respondent contended that the Applicant supplied poor quality batteries, adversely affecting their market reputation. They claimed damages amounting to Rs. 49 lakhs and stated that more than 250 defective batteries worth Rs. 16.25 lakhs were lying with different dealers. However, the Tribunal noted that no quality issues were raised by the Respondent when confirming the dues on 03.11.2017. The Respondent's claims surfaced only in an email dated 23.11.2017, which the Tribunal found to be a self-declaratory claim without supporting correspondence or evidence of prior disputes.

                            4. Warranty and Excise Benefit Withholding:
                            The Respondent argued that Rs. 60,00,000/- was withheld due to the warranty period not expiring and Rs. 30,00,000/- was retained for excise benefits. The Tribunal observed that there was no agreement or prior practice of withholding payments for warranty or excise issues. The Respondent's intention to withhold payments was communicated only after confirming the dues, which did not align with the normal business terms.

                            5. Admissibility of Dispute under IBC:
                            The Tribunal examined whether the Respondent's email correspondence amounted to a 'dispute' under the IBC. It concluded that the issues raised by the Respondent did not constitute a valid dispute as per the Code. The Respondent had not produced any prior correspondence about quality issues, and the withholding of payments for warranty and excise was not a standard business practice.

                            Judgment:
                            The Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the CIRP against the Respondent. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed, and a moratorium was imposed as per Section 14 of the IBC. The moratorium would prevent the institution or continuation of suits, transferring or disposing of assets, and recovery actions against the Respondent during the CIRP. The Applicant was directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the IRP for expenses related to the resolution process. The application was admitted under Section 9(5) of the IBC, and the order was communicated to the relevant parties and authorities.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found