Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
A contractual dispute whether non payment of a second instalment constitutes an operational debt under Sec. 5(21) and thus triggers initiation under Section 9 IBC was examined by applying the plain reading of the contract and the Mobilox test. The Tribunal held that a mere right to claim damages (Sec. 3(6)) does not automatically become an operational debt; because the contract reasonably admits the respondent's interpretation, a plausible pre existing dispute exists. Consequence: the pre existing dispute prevents invocation of insolvency remedies and the adjudicating authority's order was affirmed, with the appeal dismissed.
A contractual dispute whether non payment of a second instalment constitutes an operational debt under Sec. 5(21) and thus triggers initiation under Section 9 IBC was examined by applying the plain reading of the contract and the Mobilox test. The Tribunal held that a mere right to claim damages (Sec. 3(6)) does not automatically become an operational debt; because the contract reasonably admits the respondent's interpretation, a plausible pre existing dispute exists. Consequence: the pre existing dispute prevents invocation of insolvency remedies and the adjudicating authority's order was affirmed, with the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.