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...
Insolvency and BankruptcyJanuary 11, 2024Case LawsAT
CIRP - rejection of the claim of the appellant - fraud committed by corporate debtor while executing the "deed of assignment" - The word ‘automatically’ itself empowers the Appellant to put up the claim, declaring that the assignment agreement has been violated by the Appellant by making a false representation that their receivables were not encumbered or charged. The Corporate Debtor has no doubt made the misrepresentation in the deed of assignment which has become evident from the letter of SBI dated 08.06.2017, therefore, finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the termination of the assignment was not valid is neither here nor there. - The RP has committed an error in relying upon Section 21 of the Act, 1996. - AT
CIRP - rejection of the claim of the appellant - fraud committed by corporate debtor while executing the "deed of assignment" - The word ‘automatically’ itself empowers the Appellant to put up the claim, declaring that the assignment agreement has been violated by the Appellant by making a false representation that their receivables were not encumbered or charged. The Corporate Debtor has no doubt made the misrepresentation in the deed of assignment which has become evident from the letter of SBI dated 08.06.2017, therefore, finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the termination of the assignment was not valid is neither here nor there. - The RP has committed an error in relying upon Section 21 of the Act, 1996. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
