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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 asserts jurisdiction, validates debt, initiates insolvency resolution process, finds no genuine dispute.</h1> <h3>Jai Bhagwan Raghbir Chand Versus Nath Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction over the case, validated the debt claimed by the operational creditor, and found no genuine dispute regarding the ... Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The dispute sought to be raised in the present case is a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. The dispute is also not shown to have truly existed in fact and is spurious, hypothetical or illusory - The contention of Nath Solvent that a dispute truly existed in the present case, is thus rejected. The application under Section 9(2) of the Code is complete. Also, in its account books, Nath Solvent has accepted almost the complete amount claimed to be in default. The dispute sought to be raised by Nath Solvent has been examined in detail above and rejected. No Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) has been proposed by Jai Bhagwan in the application. The requirements of Section 9(5)(i) of the Code are satisfied - application admitted - moratorium declared. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal2. Validity of the debt and interest claimed by the operational creditor3. Existence of a dispute regarding the debt4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)5. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)6. Declaration of MoratoriumIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:The Tribunal confirmed its jurisdiction over the case as the registered address of Nath Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (Nath Solvent) is within its territorial limits, specifically in Village Mohra, Ambala Cantt.2. Validity of the Debt and Interest Claimed:Jai Bhagwan, a proprietorship firm, claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 32,76,147, which included Rs. 24,10,170.96 as the principal amount and interest and sales tax dues. The Tribunal noted that Nath Solvent had acknowledged the debt in its books of accounts for FY 2016-17 and 2017-18, showing balances that matched those claimed by Jai Bhagwan. The Tribunal found that the debt was almost fully acknowledged by Nath Solvent, thus validating the claim.3. Existence of a Dispute Regarding the Debt:Nath Solvent argued that Jai Bhagwan had defrauded them by inflating prices and that there was no agreement to pay interest at 18% per annum. However, the Tribunal found that Nath Solvent's claims were unsupported by evidence and deemed them to be a 'patently feeble legal argument.' The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., which states that a dispute must be real and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory. The Tribunal concluded that no genuine dispute existed.4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the IBC:The Tribunal confirmed that Jai Bhagwan had complied with all procedural requirements under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This included issuing a demand notice, filing an affidavit under Section 9(3)(b), and confirming that no reply or dispute was received from Nath Solvent.5. Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP):Jai Bhagwan did not propose an IRP in the application. The Tribunal, following the guidelines and panel provided by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, appointed Mr. Krishan Rajesh Chaudhary as the IRP. The Tribunal verified his credentials and found nothing adverse against him.6. Declaration of Moratorium:The Tribunal declared a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, which includes:- Suspension of all suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor.- Prohibition on transferring or disposing of any assets of the corporate debtor.- Prohibition on foreclosure or recovery actions against the corporate debtor's property.- Maintenance of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor.The moratorium will remain in effect until the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or until a resolution plan is approved or liquidation is ordered.Conclusion:The Tribunal admitted the application for initiation of CIRP against Nath Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd., declared a moratorium, and appointed Mr. Krishan Rajesh Chaudhary as the Interim Resolution Professional. The Tribunal found that the debt was valid and acknowledged, and that no genuine dispute existed. The procedural requirements under the IBC were satisfied, leading to the initiation of the insolvency process.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found