Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The NCLAT upheld the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) ruling, stating that an agreement to sell does not discharge operational debt of ₹5.73 crore, rejecting the 'moonshine' defence. The court found no genuine pre-existing dispute regarding goods supplied, confirming the obligations under the IBC.
In a significant ruling, the NCLT admitted a CIRP petition valued at ₹38.28 crore, asserting that SARFAESI proceedings do not restrain corporate debtors from defaulting under the IBC framework.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has suspended an insolvency professional for two years due to the lack of consultation with the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) and for non-compliance with regulatory oversight during a significant sale involving ₹507.2 crore.
The NCLAT affirmed the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as the agreement to secure payment did not support claims of a genuine pre-existing dispute regarding supplied goods. This decision signifies the NCLAT's position on prioritizing operational debt repayment.
The article discusses whether limitation of liability clauses are void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It outlines the implications of Sections 73 and 74 regarding secondary obligations due to breach of primary obligations in contracts.
The Delhi High Court held that a pre-CIRP Customs demand, not filed before the resolution professional, cannot be enforced after the approval of the resolution plan. This ruling has significant implications for corporate insolvency proceedings.
The Bombay High Court has approved a revival plan for Svadeshi Mills worth ₹1,200 crore, asserting the plan protects workers' dues and satisfies public interest. The ruling is significant for stakeholders involved in corporate restructuring.
The ICAI has reprimanded a Chartered Accountant for conducting three tax audits without a valid certificate of practice and imposed a fine of ₹50,000. This ruling emphasizes the necessity for compliance with certification regulations under the CA Act.
The Madras High Court has quashed a customs duty and penalty demand of ₹4.56 crore against a clearance facilitator, citing insufficient evidence of knowledge regarding concealed goods. This ruling reinforces the standards for liability in customs breaches.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that clearance from a Free Trade and Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) to a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) constitutes a new import, thus denying related re-import exemptions. This ruling impacts businesses operating between FTWZ and DTA.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld customs liability related to manipulated duty scrips while setting aside the separate penalty imposed under Section 112. The decision clarifies the application of penalties in cases of forged documentation.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal of CESTAT to condone a 968-day delay in a customs appeal, noting there was no substantial question of law or adequate reason provided for the delay. This reinforces the strict adherence to timelines in customs litigation.