Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Corporate debtor filed a reply to the financial creditor's Section 7 application in December 2023, but moved an application u/s 8 for reference to arbitration only on March 7, 2024. The financial creditor had initiated arbitration proceedings by unilaterally appointing an arbitrator in July 2019, but the arbitrator terminated the proceedings in October 2021, holding the appointment contrary to law. The NCLAT held that if an application u/s 8 is filed, the adjudicating authority must first decide the Section 7 application by recording satisfaction regarding default. The pendency or initiation of arbitration proceedings after filing the Section 7 application is immaterial. Allowing the Section 8 application would defeat the IBC's purpose by asking the adjudicating authority to await arbitration proceedings. The corporate debtor admitted debt and default in one-time settlement offers in 2019 and 2022. The adjudicating authority rightly rejected the Section 8 application, and the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Corporate debtor filed a reply to the financial creditor's Section 7 application in December 2023, but moved an application u/s 8 for reference to arbitration only on March 7, 2024. The financial creditor had initiated arbitration proceedings by unilaterally appointing an arbitrator in July 2019, but the arbitrator terminated the proceedings in October 2021, holding the appointment contrary to law. The NCLAT held that if an application u/s 8 is filed, the adjudicating authority must first decide the Section 7 application by recording satisfaction regarding default. The pendency or initiation of arbitration proceedings after filing the Section 7 application is immaterial. Allowing the Section 8 application would defeat the IBC's purpose by asking the adjudicating authority to await arbitration proceedings. The corporate debtor admitted debt and default in one-time settlement offers in 2019 and 2022. The adjudicating authority rightly rejected the Section 8 application, and the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
