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...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi addressed the maintainability of proceedings u/s 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional failed to provide a clear opinion as required by Regulation 35A, leading to the filing of the application u/s 66. The Tribunal held that action can be taken against any person involved in fraudulent transactions to recover amounts for the Corporate Debtor. In this case, the appellant was closely linked to the Corporate Debtor, reducing the outstanding amount and causing losses to creditors. Previous cases support the Tribunal's decision to uphold orders u/s 66. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order, and the appeal was dismissed. The authority to recover from fraudulent transactions was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc (P) Ltd. vs. Spade Financial Services Ltd.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi addressed the maintainability of proceedings u/s 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional failed to provide a clear opinion as required by Regulation 35A, leading to the filing of the application u/s 66. The Tribunal held that action can be taken against any person involved in fraudulent transactions to recover amounts for the Corporate Debtor. In this case, the appellant was closely linked to the Corporate Debtor, reducing the outstanding amount and causing losses to creditors. Previous cases support the Tribunal's decision to uphold orders u/s 66. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order, and the appeal was dismissed. The authority to recover from fraudulent transactions was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc (P) Ltd. vs. Spade Financial Services Ltd.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
