Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT upheld the admission of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for the Corporate Debtor (CD), a registered MSME. While acknowledging that the Section 54C application was filed beyond the 14-day statutory period after the Section 7 application, the Tribunal determined it would not serve stakeholder interests to invalidate the completed resolution. The CD's resolution involved three consortium bank members, with SBI (47.21%), IDBI (26.70%), and Bank of Baroda (26.09%) vote shares. The Tribunal directed the Successful Resolution Applicant to pay any differential amount due to the dissenting financial creditor within 30 days, in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC. The resolution plan's implementation was maintained, prioritizing the special protection afforded to MSMEs under Chapter III-A of the IBC.
NCLAT upheld the admission of Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for the Corporate Debtor (CD), a registered MSME. While acknowledging that the Section 54C application was filed beyond the 14-day statutory period after the Section 7 application, the Tribunal determined it would not serve stakeholder interests to invalidate the completed resolution. The CD's resolution involved three consortium bank members, with SBI (47.21%), IDBI (26.70%), and Bank of Baroda (26.09%) vote shares. The Tribunal directed the Successful Resolution Applicant to pay any differential amount due to the dissenting financial creditor within 30 days, in accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of IBC. The resolution plan's implementation was maintained, prioritizing the special protection afforded to MSMEs under Chapter III-A of the IBC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
