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" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
