Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of an application filed u/s 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Appellant, where the State Bank of India (SBI) had initiated proceedings u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act prior to the filing. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 10 application, citing the Appellant's malicious and fraudulent intent to delay and halt SBI's recovery proceedings. However, the NCLAT held that merely filing a Section 10 application subsequent to Section 13(2) proceedings cannot be grounds for inferring fraudulent intent. The Tribunal relied on its previous judgment in Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank, which stated that pending SARFAESI or DRT proceedings cannot be grounds for rejecting a complete Section 10 application. The NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing SBI's Section 65 application and rejecting the Section 10 application solely based on the timing of the filings. The Tribunal revived the Section 10 application for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
Rejection of an application filed u/s 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Appellant, where the State Bank of India (SBI) had initiated proceedings u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act prior to the filing. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 10 application, citing the Appellant's malicious and fraudulent intent to delay and halt SBI's recovery proceedings. However, the NCLAT held that merely filing a Section 10 application subsequent to Section 13(2) proceedings cannot be grounds for inferring fraudulent intent. The Tribunal relied on its previous judgment in Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank, which stated that pending SARFAESI or DRT proceedings cannot be grounds for rejecting a complete Section 10 application. The NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority erred in allowing SBI's Section 65 application and rejecting the Section 10 application solely based on the timing of the filings. The Tribunal revived the Section 10 application for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
