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...
Maintainability of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The claim for performance pay, being subject to subjective assessment criteria, does not constitute an "operational debt" or a "debt" under the IBC. The Appellant issued both Form 3 and Form 4 notices u/s 8 of the IBC, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the claim. The issuance of multiple notices u/s 8 does not make the claim payable as an operational debt. The claim raised by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as an operational debt, and hence, the initiation of CIRP u/s 9 against the Corporate Debtor is not justified. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the claim through the impugned order is valid and does not warrant interference by the Appellate Tribunal u/s 61 of the IBC. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Maintainability of an application for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The key points are: The claim for performance pay, being subject to subjective assessment criteria, does not constitute an "operational debt" or a "debt" under the IBC. The Appellant issued both Form 3 and Form 4 notices u/s 8 of the IBC, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the claim. The issuance of multiple notices u/s 8 does not make the claim payable as an operational debt. The claim raised by the Operational Creditor does not qualify as an operational debt, and hence, the initiation of CIRP u/s 9 against the Corporate Debtor is not justified. The Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the claim through the impugned order is valid and does not warrant interference by the Appellate Tribunal u/s 61 of the IBC. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
