Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
The dominant issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel a leave and license agreement and usage deed under IBC provisions despite the application lacking specific pleadings invoking Sections 45/46/49. Applying the requirement of section-wise material pleadings for avoidance relief, it was held that Section 49 could not be invoked on a bare Section 66/67 application. However, the agreements were treated as non-est and unenforceable because they were executed after a SARFAESI Section 13(13) restraint, statutorily prohibiting transfer/lease of secured assets; additionally, they were found to have been executed with intent to defraud creditors, justifying contribution under Section 66, including refund of sale proceeds received. Appeal dismissed. - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the Adjudicating Authority could cancel a leave and license agreement and usage deed under IBC provisions despite the application lacking specific pleadings invoking Sections 45/46/49. Applying the requirement of section-wise material pleadings for avoidance relief, it was held that Section 49 could not be invoked on a bare Section 66/67 application. However, the agreements were treated as non-est and unenforceable because they were executed after a SARFAESI Section 13(13) restraint, statutorily prohibiting transfer/lease of secured assets; additionally, they were found to have been executed with intent to defraud creditors, justifying contribution under Section 66, including refund of sale proceeds received. Appeal dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
