CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
