Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Insolvency and BankruptcyFebruary 11, 2022Case LawsAT
Initiation of CIRP - The I&B Code, 2016 is not a ‘Debt Enforcement Procedure’. The application of an ‘operational creditor’ is not maintainable, if the ‘Corporate Debtor’ has a dispute about its outstanding/debt. The ‘dispute’ is to be seen by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ as one based on tenable substantial grounds. In this connection, it is relevantly pointed out that if there is a ‘dispute’ about the debt, then, it is for the ‘applicant’ to approach the competent Civil Court to decide the triable issues. In short, the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal’ is not to be utilised as a ‘Debt Collecting Agent’. - AT
Initiation of CIRP - The I&B Code, 2016 is not a ‘Debt Enforcement Procedure’. The application of an ‘operational creditor’ is not maintainable, if the ‘Corporate Debtor’ has a dispute about its outstanding/debt. The ‘dispute’ is to be seen by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ as one based on tenable substantial grounds. In this connection, it is relevantly pointed out that if there is a ‘dispute’ about the debt, then, it is for the ‘applicant’ to approach the competent Civil Court to decide the triable issues. In short, the ‘Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal’ is not to be utilised as a ‘Debt Collecting Agent’. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
