Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of refund and adjustment of security amount in a claim. It examined Clause 8 of the Claim Form and found that the security amount was already adjusted in the claim itself. The Adjudicating Authority had relied on a Supreme Court judgment concerning the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), which permitted set-off of accounts under Regulation 29. However, the Appellate Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority erred in observing that the anticipated claim adjustment by the Appellant could not be permitted, as the present case involved an actual claim filed with adjustment of the security claim. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Adjudicating Authority's direction to pay Rs. 1,15,33,600/- could not be sustained, and the Appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
