TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The dominant issue was whether the RP wrongly classified the appellant's CIRP claim under disputed invoices as contingent and denied payment for alleged services/loss of generation. Applying s.18 IBC read with regs. 10, 13(1) and 14 of the CIRP Regulations, the NCLAT held the RP's function is limited to collating and verifying claims on the basis of available documents and does not extend to adjudicating the legality or validity of disputed claims. Since the invoices' legality and the corporate debtor's liability were sub judice before the Allahabad HC and liability was consistently disputed, the claim was contingent on that outcome; the appeal was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
