During the moratorium, tax assessment proceedings were initiated by CIT (appellant) against the corporate debtor. An order for the assessment year 2018-19 was passed on March 31, 2022.
A Company Petition u/s. 95 of the IBC was filed by Operational Creditor-White Line Enterprises against Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chugh-Appellant who stood as a Personal Guarantor for repayment of the operational debt owed by M/s Sahil Home Loomtex Pvt. Ltd.
NCLAT Delhi held that dismissal of application u/s. 65 of the Code on the ground that application has been filed before the admission of the application under Section 7 of the Code is not sustainable.
NCLAT Delhi held that there is no provision under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code which allows set of/adjustment/ counter claim against financial debt for calculating threshold limit prescribed under section 4 of the Code.
NCLAT Delhi held that interest cannot be termed as operational debt as defined under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence interest cannot be included in the claims filed under section 9 of the Code.
Held that the outstanding being of more than 2 years prior to CIRP commencement date, the relief under Section 43 of the Code would not be available. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order passed by Ld. NCLT, with liberty aforesaid.
NCLAT Chennai held that appellant having knowledge of the proceedings fall within the purview of the term ‘Person Aggrieved’ u/s. 61(1) hence cannot be exempt from applying for certified copy within prescribed time.
NCLAT Delhi held that insolvency resolution process against co-borrower justified as obligation of the Co-Borrower is coextensive and coterminous with that of the Primary Borrower.
NCLT rejected the claim stating it was filed after the initiation of CIRP. Appellant filed the appeal under Section 61 of IBC to file his claims at any time before approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ( MVAT Act ) and Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MPVAT Act”) are not pari materia with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( GVAT Act ).
