Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the admissibility of a section 9 application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the presence of pre-existing disputes between the parties. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd Vs Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd, it was emphasized that a pre-existing dispute must be more than a feeble legal argument or unsupported assertion. The Tribunal noted that the existence of claims or counterclaims, even without a reply to a demand notice, could establish a pre-existing dispute warranting rejection of a Section 9 petition. In this case, the Corporate Debtor had already initiated arbitration proceedings prior to the Section 9 petition, indicating a pre-existing dispute that could not be resolved summarily. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the dismissal of the Section 9 petition.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the admissibility of a section 9 application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in the presence of pre-existing disputes between the parties. Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Mobilox Innovations Pvt Ltd Vs Kirusa Software Pvt Ltd, it was emphasized that a pre-existing dispute must be more than a feeble legal argument or unsupported assertion. The Tribunal noted that the existence of claims or counterclaims, even without a reply to a demand notice, could establish a pre-existing dispute warranting rejection of a Section 9 petition. In this case, the Corporate Debtor had already initiated arbitration proceedings prior to the Section 9 petition, indicating a pre-existing dispute that could not be resolved summarily. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the dismissal of the Section 9 petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
