All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10241 to 10260 of 96510 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 set aside the adjudicating authority's order admitting the Section 9 application, holding that a clear pre-existing dispute existed and a civil suit filed by the operational creditor, claiming the same sum as in the demand notice, was pending prior to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal found the corporate debtor's defence was plausible and not a feeble or unsupported contention; notice of the suit was placed before the operational creditor and the adjudicating authority. Under the scheme of Sections 8 and 9 (including Section 9(5)(ii)(d)), admission was impermissible where suit/arbitration predates the demand notice, so the Section 9 admission was erroneous.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicating authority's order admitting the Section 9 application, holding that a clear pre-existing dispute existed and a civil suit filed by the operational creditor, claiming the same sum as in the demand notice, was pending prior to issuance of the notice. The Tribunal found the corporate debtor's defence was plausible and not a feeble or unsupported contention; notice of the suit was placed before the operational creditor and the adjudicating authority. Under the scheme of Sections 8 and 9 (including Section 9(5)(ii)(d)), admission was impermissible where suit/arbitration predates the demand notice, so the Section 9 admission was erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.