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...
The NCLAT held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
The NCLAT held that the amount of Rs. 1 crore lying in the "No Lien Account" with the Appellant bank belongs to the Corporate Debtor and is an asset of the Corporate Debtor. Once the CIRP was initiated, the IRP/RP was obliged to take control/custody of this amount as per Section 18 of the IBC, 2016. Since the moratorium had commenced upon initiation of CIRP, the bank could not have appropriated this money. Following a previous judgment, the NCLAT found that the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the said amount is an asset of the Corporate Debtor, and the IRP/RP has rightly claimed the said deposit for utilization in CIRP. Consequently, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
