Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
