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...
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
