Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor were held to constitute financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code because liabilities under guarantees for money borrowed against payment of interest fall within that definition. The Court accepted that the guarantees were in existence and had been verified, and held that non-disclosure in financial statements did not defeat the substantive claim. It further held that non-submission before the NCLT was not fatal, since documents could be produced on appeal and the resolution professional was entitled to verify claims. Insufficient stamping was treated as a curable defect, not a ground to render the guarantees unenforceable. The concurrent findings rejecting the claims were found perverse and were set aside, with directions to include the appellants in the committee of creditors.
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor were held to constitute financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Code because liabilities under guarantees for money borrowed against payment of interest fall within that definition. The Court accepted that the guarantees were in existence and had been verified, and held that non-disclosure in financial statements did not defeat the substantive claim. It further held that non-submission before the NCLT was not fatal, since documents could be produced on appeal and the resolution professional was entitled to verify claims. Insufficient stamping was treated as a curable defect, not a ground to render the guarantees unenforceable. The concurrent findings rejecting the claims were found perverse and were set aside, with directions to include the appellants in the committee of creditors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.