Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT held that operational debt interest claims require explicit contractual agreement. The tribunal rejected the operational creditor's interest component in the Section 9 Application due to absence of specific contractual provisions. The Code's deliberate exclusion of interest from operational debt definition mandates that interest cannot be unilaterally imposed without mutual consent. The principal amount was ordered to be released to the respondent, effectively allowing the appeal while dismissing the interest claim. The tribunal emphasized that initiating corporate insolvency resolution process would not serve the Code's objective of maximizing debtor's asset value. Appeal was consequently allowed with the principal amount being released.
NCLAT held that operational debt interest claims require explicit contractual agreement. The tribunal rejected the operational creditor's interest component in the Section 9 Application due to absence of specific contractual provisions. The Code's deliberate exclusion of interest from operational debt definition mandates that interest cannot be unilaterally imposed without mutual consent. The principal amount was ordered to be released to the respondent, effectively allowing the appeal while dismissing the interest claim. The tribunal emphasized that initiating corporate insolvency resolution process would not serve the Code's objective of maximizing debtor's asset value. Appeal was consequently allowed with the principal amount being released.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.