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...
The NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent powers u/r 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 to approve a settlement between the second respondent and the Corporate Debtor, circumventing the prescribed procedure for withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A and Regulation 30A. The inherent powers cannot override specific legal provisions exhaustively providing a procedure. The NCLAT failed to provide reasons for deviating from the withdrawal procedure or the urgency necessitating approval without following due process. Once CIRP commenced, it became a collective proceeding involving all creditors as stakeholders. The NCLAT inadequately addressed the appellant's objections regarding the ongoing ED investigation against the respondents and attempts by the Corporate Debtor to dissipate assets. Despite the appellant not being a party to the settlement, it has locus standi as an aggrieved person u/ss 61 and 62 of the IBC to challenge the NCLAT order before the Supreme Court. The impugned NCLAT judgment is set aside.
The NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent powers u/r 11 of the NCLAT Rules 2016 to approve a settlement between the second respondent and the Corporate Debtor, circumventing the prescribed procedure for withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A and Regulation 30A. The inherent powers cannot override specific legal provisions exhaustively providing a procedure. The NCLAT failed to provide reasons for deviating from the withdrawal procedure or the urgency necessitating approval without following due process. Once CIRP commenced, it became a collective proceeding involving all creditors as stakeholders. The NCLAT inadequately addressed the appellant's objections regarding the ongoing ED investigation against the respondents and attempts by the Corporate Debtor to dissipate assets. Despite the appellant not being a party to the settlement, it has locus standi as an aggrieved person u/ss 61 and 62 of the IBC to challenge the NCLAT order before the Supreme Court. The impugned NCLAT judgment is set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
