NCLAT Delhi held that RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) being an aggrieved person under section 61 of I&B Code 2016 has a locus to file an Appeal against order initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Delhi High Court held that section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003 governs the tariff rates of electricity based which is determined through transparent process and hence no interference is required.
CESTAT Kolkata held that question of unjust enrichment in terms of section 27(2) of the Customs Act doesn’t not arise as imported goods are used as raw material for manufacture of final product i.e. imported goods are not sold to someone else.
NCLAT Delhi held that financial assistance given by the Appellant in a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) by way of an Inter-Corporate Deposit (ICD) does not fall within the canvas of financial debt as defined u/s. 5(8) of the IBC. Hence, CIRP application u/s 7 not entertained.
Delhi High Court held that as the medical facilities available at jail dispensary not adequate for medical treatment of the applicant, the applicant is allowed to get required physiotherapy treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.
Supreme Court held that period of limitation provided under section 61(2) of the IBC began from the date of upload of order in case where date of upload of order and date of pronouncement is not on same date.
ITAT Hyderabad held that as the parties have entered into registered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on 04.04.2007 and the “Group of assessee” have also handed over possession to the TBPD pursuant to the agreement. Hence, transfer took place in the assessment year 2008-09.
Supreme Court held that promoter of the company are not disqualified per say under section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) to dis-entitle him from presenting the resolution plan. Thus, promoters are eligible to submit resolution plan.
Calcutta High Court held that provisional attachment of bank account under section 83 of the CGST Act based on tangible materials found against the petitioners during investigation is legal, valid and within jurisdiction.
ITAT Hyderabad held that transfer of assets of the partnership to the retiring partners would amount to the transfer of the capital assets in the nature of capital gains and business profits which is chargeable to tax under section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act.
