Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Adjudicating Authority does not appear to have committed any error in holding the alleged disputes claimed by the Corporate Debtor to be feeble as it is not supported by credible evidence.” NCLAT
While upholding NCLT’s order the NCLAT held that in the present case there is a debt which remained unpaid by the Operational Creditor.
Allahabad High Court reiterated that the demand notice should be read as a whole. In the demand notice, the holder or payee can demand to pay out for the said amount, i.e., cheque amount.
Supreme Court held that the Telangana High Court erred in setting aside the demand notice for the period after October 1989 and that the amended Section 1(6) was applied retrospectively. It was of the view that only in the case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Section 1(6) of the ESI Act, it could be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively.
Allahabad High Court held that the demand notice is illegal, as no CIC charges can be demanded from the petitioner company, if there is merely a change in the name of the original allottee/leasee company and there is no change in the ownership or shareholding of the allottee company
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ. disposed the petition and directed fresh adjudication as
Mr Anand Subramanian had been asked to pay a sum of Rs 2,04,87,575 (Rupees Two Crore Four Lakh Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred
National Company Law Tribunal: The Coram of Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member) and Narender Kumar Bhola (Technical Member) initiates insolvency proceedings
Saket District Court, Delhi: Sonam Singh, MM (NI Act) acquitted the accused who was charged with an offence under Section 138 of
Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. CMM, convicted a person who presented a cheque to
Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: In light of cheque being returned by the bank due to “Account Closed”
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Ashok Bhushan, J (Chairperson), Jarat Kumar Jain, J (Judicial) and Dr Ashok Kumar
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member) decided an issue
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Venugopal M (Judicial Member) and Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) held that a
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed
Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., highlights the essence of the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, in light of the object of a
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., while addressing the instant matter held that, demand notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act can
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson) and Justice Anant Bijay Sing (Judicial Member) and
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., while addressing a matter with regard to dishonour of cheque held that, Director/Managing Director/Joint Director/other
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,