Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
A disputed refund of advance paid for supply of goods was not treated as an undisputed operational debt, because the parties had continued negotiations, entered a later settlement arrangement, and the corporate debtor had asserted forfeiture for failure to lift stock within time. On that basis, debt and default were held not to coexist for Section 9 insolvency relief, and any challenge to forfeiture had to be pursued elsewhere. The Tribunal also held that limitation ran from the first refund demand, so the insolvency notice issued more than three years later was time-barred under Article 137. The Section 9 application was therefore dismissed.
A disputed refund of advance paid for supply of goods was not treated as an undisputed operational debt, because the parties had continued negotiations, entered a later settlement arrangement, and the corporate debtor had asserted forfeiture for failure to lift stock within time. On that basis, debt and default were held not to coexist for Section 9 insolvency relief, and any challenge to forfeiture had to be pursued elsewhere. The Tribunal also held that limitation ran from the first refund demand, so the insolvency notice issued more than three years later was time-barred under Article 137. The Section 9 application was therefore dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.