Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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.