Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.
A pre-existing dispute must be real, substantial and linked to the debt claimed; a later plea of non-supply, raised only before the Adjudicating Authority and not in reply to the demand notice, was treated as an afterthought and did not defeat the Section 9 application. A franchise dispute involving a separate proprietorship concern of the same proprietor was held to be independent of the invoice debt, so it could not constitute a pre-existing dispute for that claim. The tribunal also held that a proprietorship concern is not barred from invoking the Code, and that a demand notice may validly be issued through an authorised advocate. On that basis, the rejection of the Section 9 application was set aside and the matter remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.