Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
