Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Section 96 of the IBC was held inapplicable to proceedings for making attachment absolute under the MPID Act because the attached property was not a debt and no debtor-creditor relationship existed between the appellants and the State. The Court further held that the MPID Act and the IBC operate in distinct legislative fields, so Article 254(1) repugnancy did not arise and Section 238 of the IBC could not override the MPID Act. Applying the binding precedent in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court rejected the challenge to the refusal of stay and dismissed the appeals, also imposing costs for repetitive litigation.
Section 96 of the IBC was held inapplicable to proceedings for making attachment absolute under the MPID Act because the attached property was not a debt and no debtor-creditor relationship existed between the appellants and the State. The Court further held that the MPID Act and the IBC operate in distinct legislative fields, so Article 254(1) repugnancy did not arise and Section 238 of the IBC could not override the MPID Act. Applying the binding precedent in National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court rejected the challenge to the refusal of stay and dismissed the appeals, also imposing costs for repetitive litigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
