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...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Scope of CIRP costs - Section 5(13) and Regulation 31 - waterfall mechanism - contract was completed during the CIRP period - The Tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be classified as CIRP cost, it must be directly related to maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and approved by the CoC. The primacy of CoC in such determinations. - Regarding Role of Contractual Terms: The Tribunal noted that payments to RBM Enterprises were contingent on NTPC payments to SHEL, which did not materialize. Therefore, the claim did not qualify as a CIRP cost. - Ultimately, the Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's order, declaring that the claim by RBM Enterprises does not meet the criteria for CIRP costs and should be classified under Section 53 of the Code for liquidation distribution.
Scope of CIRP costs - Section 5(13) and Regulation 31 - waterfall mechanism - contract was completed during the CIRP period - The Tribunal emphasized that for a claim to be classified as CIRP cost, it must be directly related to maintaining the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and approved by the CoC. The primacy of CoC in such determinations. - Regarding Role of Contractual Terms: The Tribunal noted that payments to RBM Enterprises were contingent on NTPC payments to SHEL, which did not materialize. Therefore, the claim did not qualify as a CIRP cost. - Ultimately, the Tribunal overturned the Adjudicating Authority's order, declaring that the claim by RBM Enterprises does not meet the criteria for CIRP costs and should be classified under Section 53 of the Code for liquidation distribution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
