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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9</h1> The Tribunal upheld the admission of the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for the initiation of Corporate ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - pre-existing dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The supply of materials by ‘Operational Creditor’ to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ under the purchase order and LoA is not in controversy. It is also not in controversy that some of the goods lying unutilised in Gaya DF Area, exposed to vagaries of Nature or pilferage, were lifted back by the ‘Operational Creditor’ at the specific request of the ‘Corporate Debtor’. The conclusion drawn by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of material brought on record by the parties that dispute in regard to quality of goods not matching the specification of franchiser was for the first time raised by the ‘Corporate Debtor’ in its reply to the demand notice, justifies the conclusion that the defence raised was an afterthought and spurious. Factum and validity of the letter produced, goes un-assailed and uncontroverted on the part of ‘Corporate Debtor’ as also the Appellant. The amount acknowledged to be in default far exceeds the prescribed limit of ₹ 1 lakh warranting triggering of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’. In this view of the matter, the issue raised in this appeal no more survives for consideration as the operational debt being due and payable stands admitted and acknowledged. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved:1. Adjudication of application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.2. Existence of a pre-existing dispute between the Operational Creditor and Corporate Debtor justifying the admission of the application under Section 9.Detailed analysis:1. The Respondent, an Operational Creditor, filed an application seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor for defaulting on an operational debt. The Adjudicating Authority admitted the application, leading to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. The Appellant, the Corporate Debtor, challenged the admission primarily on the ground of a pre-existing dispute. The factual matrix involved the supply of goods by the Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor, with some goods remaining unpaid. The Adjudicating Authority considered various communications between the parties, including an email acknowledging liability from the Corporate Debtor. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the pre-existing dispute raised by the Corporate Debtor as an afterthought, leading to the appeal.2. The main issue for consideration was whether a pre-existing dispute existed that would prevent the admission of the application under Section 9. The Appellant contended that disputes regarding the quality of goods supplied and reconciliation of accounts were ongoing, and the Adjudicating Authority did not address the quantum of default adequately. On the other hand, the Operational Creditor argued that the Corporate Debtor's defenses were afterthoughts, with no proof of defective goods claims. The Operational Creditor highlighted acknowledgments of liability by the Corporate Debtor in subsequent communications, surpassing the threshold for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.3. After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that the supply of materials and the lifting of goods by the Operational Creditor were not in dispute. The Adjudicating Authority's conclusion that the quality dispute was raised belatedly by the Corporate Debtor was upheld. The Tribunal noted that the admitted liability exceeded the threshold for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, rendering the pre-existing dispute argument moot. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the uncontroverted acknowledgment of the debt by the Corporate Debtor, thus upholding the admission of the application under Section 9.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found