Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Issue was whether amendment of a personal guarantor insolvency petition under s.95 IBC to change the date of default by adding a loan recall notice dated 05.04.2016 was permissible, despite objections on limitation and lack of proper invocation of guarantee. The tribunal held that amendment was justified since the creditor could not produce proof of service of an earlier statutory demand, and the added recall notice formed the factual basis to be tested on merits. Allowing amendment did not amount to any finding on limitation or validity of guarantee invocation, which could be urged in reply and decided by the adjudicating authority. Appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Issue was whether amendment of a personal guarantor insolvency petition under s.95 IBC to change the date of default by adding a loan recall notice dated 05.04.2016 was permissible, despite objections on limitation and lack of proper invocation of guarantee. The tribunal held that amendment was justified since the creditor could not produce proof of service of an earlier statutory demand, and the added recall notice formed the factual basis to be tested on merits. Allowing amendment did not amount to any finding on limitation or validity of guarantee invocation, which could be urged in reply and decided by the adjudicating authority. Appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
