Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 96408 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 LawsHC
Once the application of Part II is taken away for debts more than ₹ 1 Crore, there is no further jurisdiction available under the Statute to the NCLT to act as an Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. It is hence a clear case of total want of jurisdiction - In Ext. P9 order, the Tribunal has held that the notification dated 24.03.2020 is prospective in nature and it is not retrospective or retro-active in nature. It is further stated by the Tribunal that notification will not apply to pending applications before the concerned Adjudicating Authority under the IBC prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. - The Tribunal has gone wrong in its interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4, after amendment on 24.3.2020 clearly says that Part II of the IBC shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is ₹ 1 Crore. - HC
Once the application of Part II is taken away for debts more than ₹ 1 Crore, there is no further jurisdiction available under the Statute to the NCLT to act as an Adjudicating Authority under the IBC. It is hence a clear case of total want of jurisdiction - In Ext. P9 order, the Tribunal has held that the notification dated 24.03.2020 is prospective in nature and it is not retrospective or retro-active in nature. It is further stated by the Tribunal that notification will not apply to pending applications before the concerned Adjudicating Authority under the IBC prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. - The Tribunal has gone wrong in its interpretation of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4, after amendment on 24.3.2020 clearly says that Part II of the IBC shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of default is ₹ 1 Crore. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
