Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.