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 Appellate Tribunal held that the Annual Mine Closure Cost (AMCC) deposited by the Corporate Debtor in an Escrow Account belongs to the Corporate Debtor and cannot be kept aside from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Escrow Agreement provided for the return of the entire AMCC amount to the Corporate Debtor after completing mine closure activities. Categorizing AMCC as a pre-CIRP due and allowing its recovery independently would contravene the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). AMCC should be considered a CIRP cost u/s 5(13) of the IBC for running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's direction to keep AMCC aside, as it would give the Respondents an undue preference over other creditors, defeating the purpose of CIRP. The appeal was allowed, modifying the impugned order.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Annual Mine Closure Cost (AMCC) deposited by the Corporate Debtor in an Escrow Account belongs to the Corporate Debtor and cannot be kept aside from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Escrow Agreement provided for the return of the entire AMCC amount to the Corporate Debtor after completing mine closure activities. Categorizing AMCC as a pre-CIRP due and allowing its recovery independently would contravene the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). AMCC should be considered a CIRP cost u/s 5(13) of the IBC for running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's direction to keep AMCC aside, as it would give the Respondents an undue preference over other creditors, defeating the purpose of CIRP. The appeal was allowed, modifying the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
