Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96333 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 insolvency application was rejected because the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties. The corporate debtor had, before the demand notice, complained of defective consignments, including rusting and non-conformity with specifications, sought replacement, and rejected the goods; the operational creditor's own emails acknowledging quality deficiency and offering compensation reinforced that the dispute was real. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authority need only see whether the dispute is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not a patently feeble defence. It also held that issues on CFR INCOTERMS and Sale of Goods Act remedies were outside summary insolvency jurisdiction, and the rejection of the application was affirmed.
A Section 9 insolvency application was rejected because the record disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute between the parties. The corporate debtor had, before the demand notice, complained of defective consignments, including rusting and non-conformity with specifications, sought replacement, and rejected the goods; the operational creditor's own emails acknowledging quality deficiency and offering compensation reinforced that the dispute was real. The tribunal held that the adjudicating authority need only see whether the dispute is a plausible contention requiring further investigation, not a patently feeble defence. It also held that issues on CFR INCOTERMS and Sale of Goods Act remedies were outside summary insolvency jurisdiction, and the rejection of the application was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
