Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject land is an asset of the corporate debtor, as such questions arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process. The proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed did not amount to an arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and thus were not binding on the parties. The IRP/RP could rightly include the subject land in the Information Memorandum/CIRP process by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation, as the corporate debtor claimed development rights over the land. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in allowing the intervention petition filed by Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to determine whether the subject land is an asset of the corporate debtor, as such questions arise out of or relate to the insolvency resolution process. The proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator and the orders passed did not amount to an arbitral award under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and thus were not binding on the parties. The IRP/RP could rightly include the subject land in the Information Memorandum/CIRP process by virtue of Section 18(1)(f) explanation, as the corporate debtor claimed development rights over the land. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in allowing the intervention petition filed by Art Construction Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
