Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether the applicant qualified as a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged corporate guarantee. The tribunal held that no valid and enforceable guarantee was proved because reliance on a master loan clause, absent a separate guarantee deed, prior invocation, or authorising board resolution, did not establish a binding guarantee or a financial debt under s. 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claim was rightly rejected. It further held that the claim was time-barred and could not be entertained after resolution plan approval, and that filing the same admitted debt in two CIRPs without safeguards against double recovery was impermissible duplication; hence the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the applicant qualified as a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged corporate guarantee. The tribunal held that no valid and enforceable guarantee was proved because reliance on a master loan clause, absent a separate guarantee deed, prior invocation, or authorising board resolution, did not establish a binding guarantee or a financial debt under s. 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claim was rightly rejected. It further held that the claim was time-barred and could not be entertained after resolution plan approval, and that filing the same admitted debt in two CIRPs without safeguards against double recovery was impermissible duplication; hence the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
