Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This legal summary concerns the maintainability of a Section 7 application for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor. The key points are: The transaction involved receivables discounting on a recourse basis, constituting a financial debt u/s 5(8)(e) of the IBC Act. The Supreme Court's rulings in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. establish that for a Section 7 application by a Financial Creditor, the existence of a financial debt and default exceeding Rs. 1 crore is sufficient for admission, without considering defenses of set-off or counterclaim. In the present case, the Financial Creditor proved the existence of debt and default exceeding Rs. 1 crore by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, as per Section 7(5) of the IBC Act, the application was admitted, and the CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, with a moratorium declared.
This legal summary concerns the maintainability of a Section 7 application for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor. The key points are: The transaction involved receivables discounting on a recourse basis, constituting a financial debt u/s 5(8)(e) of the IBC Act. The Supreme Court's rulings in Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. establish that for a Section 7 application by a Financial Creditor, the existence of a financial debt and default exceeding Rs. 1 crore is sufficient for admission, without considering defenses of set-off or counterclaim. In the present case, the Financial Creditor proved the existence of debt and default exceeding Rs. 1 crore by the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, as per Section 7(5) of the IBC Act, the application was admitted, and the CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, with a moratorium declared.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
