Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
