Fair market value under section 50C must reflect existing property condition, not hypothetical development, and statutory valuation steps must be foll...
NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging admission of Section 9 IBC application, affirming the application was within limitation period. Last payment made on 17.02.2017 extended limitation to 17.02.2020, and filing on next working day was permissible under Limitation Act. Tribunal rejected appellant's claim of improper demand notice service and pre-existing dispute. CD's contention of cash payments was unsupported by evidence beyond self-serving ledger entries. The alleged dispute emerged only post-demand notice. Application's maintainability was upheld despite OC being unregistered partnership firm, as Section 69(2) of Partnership Act restrictions don't apply to IBC proceedings. CIRP to continue against CD.
NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging admission of Section 9 IBC application, affirming the application was within limitation period. Last payment made on 17.02.2017 extended limitation to 17.02.2020, and filing on next working day was permissible under Limitation Act. Tribunal rejected appellant's claim of improper demand notice service and pre-existing dispute. CD's contention of cash payments was unsupported by evidence beyond self-serving ledger entries. The alleged dispute emerged only post-demand notice. Application's maintainability was upheld despite OC being unregistered partnership firm, as Section 69(2) of Partnership Act restrictions don't apply to IBC proceedings. CIRP to continue against CD.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
