Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A Section 9 IBC application by an operational creditor is liable to be rejected where the information utility record reflects a dispute, since Section 9 is a summary remedy for undisputed operational debt and Section 9(5)(ii)(d) mandates rejection upon existence of dispute. As the operational creditor itself produced the information utility certificate showing a recorded dispute, the adjudicating authority erred in admitting the application without addressing that statutory bar; the admission order was set aside and the Section 9 application rejected. Independently, a pre-existing dispute was evident from the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice disputing liability, attracting Section 9(5)(ii)(d); the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
A Section 9 IBC application by an operational creditor is liable to be rejected where the information utility record reflects a dispute, since Section 9 is a summary remedy for undisputed operational debt and Section 9(5)(ii)(d) mandates rejection upon existence of dispute. As the operational creditor itself produced the information utility certificate showing a recorded dispute, the adjudicating authority erred in admitting the application without addressing that statutory bar; the admission order was set aside and the Section 9 application rejected. Independently, a pre-existing dispute was evident from the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice disputing liability, attracting Section 9(5)(ii)(d); the appeal was allowed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
