Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5861 to 5880 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal applied a broad reading of "person aggrieved" under Section 61 IBC and held that both a shareholder-creditor and a decree-holder with garnishee orders had locus to challenge admission of the Section 7 application. It further found that the alleged loan transaction showed same-day fund transfers, round-tripping and other indicators of a sham or collusive arrangement, so the real nature of the transaction had to be examined rather than treating balance-sheet entries or MoUs as conclusive. On that material, it held that no genuine financial debt with disbursal for time value of money was established. The appeals were allowed and the Section 7 admission was set aside.
The Tribunal applied a broad reading of "person aggrieved" under Section 61 IBC and held that both a shareholder-creditor and a decree-holder with garnishee orders had locus to challenge admission of the Section 7 application. It further found that the alleged loan transaction showed same-day fund transfers, round-tripping and other indicators of a sham or collusive arrangement, so the real nature of the transaction had to be examined rather than treating balance-sheet entries or MoUs as conclusive. On that material, it held that no genuine financial debt with disbursal for time value of money was established. The appeals were allowed and the Section 7 admission was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.