Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 the operational creditor's Section 9 application was not maintainable due to failure to meet the statutory threshold limit of Rs 1 crore. The tribunal found prima facie evidence of suppressed payments and manipulated ledger accounts. By factoring in subsequent payments made by the corporate debtor after the critical date, the outstanding debt fell below the prescribed minimum limit. The appellate tribunal determined that the adjudicating authority was misled into initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) ex parte. Consequently, the appeal was admitted, and the CIRP triggering was deemed unwarranted, effectively setting aside the earlier order.
NCLAT held that the operational creditor's Section 9 application was not maintainable due to failure to meet the statutory threshold limit of Rs 1 crore. The tribunal found prima facie evidence of suppressed payments and manipulated ledger accounts. By factoring in subsequent payments made by the corporate debtor after the critical date, the outstanding debt fell below the prescribed minimum limit. The appellate tribunal determined that the adjudicating authority was misled into initiating corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) ex parte. Consequently, the appeal was admitted, and the CIRP triggering was deemed unwarranted, effectively setting aside the earlier order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
