|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1739 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 1542
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation - cost of transportation was included in the F.O.R. - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. JAIPUR-II [2017 (3) TMI 1126 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where the ratio laid down in the case of M/S MADRAS CEMENTS LTD VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-I) [2015 (7) TMI 1001 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was followed and it was held that appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on outward goods transportation agency services - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1541
Revocation of CHA License - the proceedings were conducted pursuant to the said notice which have been culminated in an order dated 27th January, 2017 revoking the licence of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This writ petition and application are disposed of being rendered infructuous.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1540
Validity of proceedings completed u/s 153A - Additional grounds raised by the assessee on the legal issue of validity of search proceedings - validity of the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 of the Act questioned on the ground that the search was carried in violation of provisions of section 132 of the Act as there was no material or evidence was seized at the time of search showing any undisclosed income - HELD THAT:- Whether there was an incriminating material found during the course of search or not, is a matter of fact, which can be find out from the records available with the department. Unless the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) examine the search folder, it is difficult to conclude that that there was no incriminating material found during the search. Since the lower authorities did not had an occasion to examine the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of search proceedings in the light of claim of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for his consideration and direct him to admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee and adjudicate the issue as per law.
Since we have set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the legal issue of validity of search proceedings, the grounds raised by the assessee, challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits has not been consider at this juncture. Appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1539
Penalty u/s 271D - unexplained income of the assessee - contravening the provisions of Section 269SS HELD THAT:- A.O. made addition of the aforesaid amounts considering it to be unexplained income of the assessee. In the assessment order, the A.O. did not record any satisfaction contravening the provisions of Section 269SS of the I.T. Act. When the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions on merit, the A.O. initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271D of the I.T. Act against the assessee. Therefore, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills [2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT]
CIT(A) found on examination of the material on record that assessee entered into the genuine transactions and funds are transferred inter-se between assessee and the AOP which are recorded in the books of account. Since for renewal of the licence of liquor business, immediate cash is required for obtaining the licence from the Government, assessee had taken cash. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) found reasonable cause for failure to comply with the above provision. Therefore, penalty was rightly cancelled - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (8) TMI 1538
TDS u/s 194C - TDS on clearing and forwarding charges paid to C&F Agents for clearing the consignments of import of goods - as held by HC that while at time of de-novo determination of the issue on merits in accordance with law, however the onus shall be on the assessee to bring on record evidences that the ultimate payments made by C&F agents to the payee have been offered by them to tax assessee shall be allowed by the AO to file necessary evidences and explanations in course of de-novo proceedings - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1537
Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - Corporate Debtor - appointment of an IRP - section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - doctrine of approbate and reprobate - HELD THAT:- In the present matter not only the applicant but equally the respondent/corporate debtor company in the present petition as well as in the petition before the Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench have made allegation, counter allegation against each other raising dispute on legality, enforceability and validity of such settlement agreement dated 15th March, 2016 along with an original service agreement dated 8th July, 2010. Therefore, by taking into consideration these allegations which appears to be disputed question of fact. We feel it is not proper for this court within scope of I & B Code to explore the truth behind such agreements as in our humble view such disputed facts need to be ascertained by issue involved therein can be dealt with only by a competent civil court.
The agreement dated 15th March, 2016 cannot be enforced nor can be acted upon through filing of the present petition under the I & B Code before this Tribunal to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the respondent company because of the applicant himself in a parallel proceeding before a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has very much disputed the contents of such agreement, free will and meeting of free minds before executing such deed and has already opted to revert back to his original contract i.e. service agreement dated 08.07.2010. Hence, in our view it is no longer open to him to fall back again seeking enforcement of the disputed agreement dated 15th March, 2016 for the purpose of initiation of the CIRP against the present corporate debtor as both of the parties to the present petition have made allegations, counter allegation against each other for making undue influence, coercion etc.
Such issue needs to be agitated before a competent court of law and not before us under the I & B Code. Further, we are constrained to observe such the approach of the applicant in this petition, it is not improper, so, even then it cannot be said as fair to make parallel approach in both courts by keeping in dark with each other. Such action on the part of applicant is deprecated - the present application is liable to be rejected on the ground alone, even otherwise it is found maintainable before this Bench.
The present petition is not found complete and maintainable on the basis of such doctrine of approbate and reprobate - the present petition is liable to be rejected on the question of maintainability under the I & B Code before this Bench of the Tribunal.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1536
Characterization of expenses - Payment of royalty and lump sum fee - capital or revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- The Revenue is directed to file a compilation of the agreements involved in the Hero Motocorp Ltd. case, the Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 1283 - DELHI HIGH COURT]case and the present case before the next date of hearing. It would be open to the Assessee to file a similar compilation before the next date of hearing.
Expenditure on airfare booked under technical guidance fee - capital or revenue expenditure - disallowance of entry tax as claimed as a deductible U/s 43B - expenditure incurred on software expenses as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Question stand answered against the Revenue by the order in CIT v. Honda SIEL Cars India Ltd.[ 2013 (5) TMI 1006 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . Consequently, the court declines to frame these questions in the present case.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1535
TDS u/s 195 - payment to Honda motor Japan - payments to non-resident companies without deducting tax at source - disallowance u/section 40(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- Non-discrimination clause of article 24(3) of the DTAA between India and Japan is not applicable over the assessee and there was no discrimination qua the payer. However, we find that as far as the payment to Honda motor Japan is concerned, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2009-10 [2016 (9) TMI 439 - ITAT DELHI] , wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Herbalife [2016 (5) TMI 697 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. We note that Hon’ble High Court in the case of Herbalife (supra) has also considered the amendment in provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act by way of insertion of sub-clause(ia) w.e.f. 01/04/2005. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the order of Tribunal (supra), we delete the disallowance in respect of payment to Honda motor Japan.
Payment to Honda Asia Thailand - As assessee contended that no PE has been held by the DRP in the case of non-resident company in assessment year 2010-11 and this fact was not controverted by the Ld. CIT-(DR), thus, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2009-10 [2016 (9) TMI 439 - ITAT DELHI], we hold no disallowance could be made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act for payment made to Honda Asia Thailand without deduction of tax at source.
Addition made towards royalty and lump sum fee - capital expenditure or revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999-2000 to 2005-06 [2017 (6) TMI 524 - SUPREME COURT] would not be applicable in the assessment year under consideration, since the assessee was already engaged in the manufacturing of cars and spare parts and the payments towards royalty/technical knowhow paid in pursuant to agreement dated 01/04/2005 were not toward setting up of manufacturing facility, hence we hold that royalty/technical knowhow payment made by the assessee during the year under consideration were revenue in nature and the Ld. CIT-A has correctly allowed the said expenditure as revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue.
Expenditure on airfare booked under technical guidance fee - capital expenditure or revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Since in the year under consideration on this issue also there is no change in facts as were existing in assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007- 08 and 2008-09, in which ITAT has given finding in appellant’s favour. Therefore, respectfully following the ITAT’s orders for the earlier year, on the identical facts, it is held that the expenditure claimed by the appellant on account of air fare and travel expenses is in nature of revenue expenditure.
Disallowance of sales tax as claimed as deduction u/s 43B - according to AO the sale tax liability paid under protest, was not an ascertained tax liability and therefore, it was provisional nature and accordingly not allowable - HELD THAT:- We find that the payment of sales tax as well as entry tax both are governed by the section 43B of the Act. Since the Ld. CIT-(A) has adjudicated the issue in dispute following the order of the Tribunal in earlier years, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground of the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Allowability of software expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- As the issue involved in the year under consideration is identical to that in assessment year 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10, hence, following the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008- 09, referred to above, and also the first appellate order for AY 2009-10 [2016 (9) TMI 439 - ITAT DELHI] , the payment of expenditure incurred on the above softwares, which are materially similar to the- software acquired by the appellant in earlier years, is held to be an allowable revenue expenditure.
Addition in terms of section 14A - AO held that the assessee has incurred direct and indirect expenses in the activity of earning tax exempt income and accordingly invoking the rule 8D made disallowance u/r 8D(2)(ii) and rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- The fact that no exempt income has been earned by the assessee during the year, has not been disputed by the Revenue. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that no disallowance under section 14A of the Act could be made where no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1534
Cancellation of license for running of country made Liquor Shop - remand of the order - HELD THAT:- As the impugned order is only reiteration of the earlier order dated 31.05.2017 and directs for maintaining the same, despite the fact that the said order was held to be unsustainable in law by the appellate authority, the impugned order dated 18.08.2017 is hereby quashed with direction to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order on each and every aspect of the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any outside pressure as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of an authentic copy of this order.
Petition allowed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1533
Cancellation of license for running a country liquor shop - validity of remand order - HELD THAT:- One thing is clear that the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner is no longer in existence. Therefore, there is no justification on part of the respondents authorities not to permit the petitioner to carry on his business of liquor as per the licence granted to him.
The petition is disposed of with the direction to the licensing authority to consider and pass appropriate order on the aforesaid application of the petitioner dated 26.07.2017 as also the fresh order pursuant to the order of remand dated 19.07.2017 in accordance with law.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1532
Unexplained cash credit - Addition on peak credit basis - Additions in the hands of the assessee HUF - HELD THAT:- Cash credit computed by the CIT(A) is not appropriate because he has adopted the cumulative cash deposited in the bank account as the peak credit. The computation of peak credit by the AO is appropriate because he has computed the peak credit based on the peak credit of the assessee on any given point of time in the bank account during the relevant assessment year.
The assessee has not produced any evidence before us to establish that the cash credit made in the bank account of the assessee was from the jewel loan and cash withdrawal from the cash credit account maintained with the bank. Therefore no merit in the argument advanced by the assessee on that regard. Considering the status of the assessee which is a HUF wherein there are other co-parceners whose financial position should also be considered while making such additions in the hands of the assessee HUF, hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Assessee's appeal allowed for statistical purposes
-
2017 (8) TMI 1531
Grant of registration u/s 12AA - denial of registration as assessee would have applied u/s 10(23C) instead of Section 12AA as assessee was running hospital or school - scope of powers of the CIT(E) - either to apply for exemption under Section 10(23C) of the Act or claim exemption under Section 12AA ? - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that for the purpose of granting registration u/s 12A, scope of powers of the CIT(E) is limited to be being satisfied about the objects and the genuineness of the activities of the assessee and once the CIT having accepted that the main aim of the society is running of college and educational institutions and made no adverse observation regarding genuineness of the objects or the activities carried on by the society then registration u/s 12AA could not be denied on the ground that it was entitled exemption under any other provision.
In the case of CIT vs. Bosotto Brothers Limited 1939 (1) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that if a case appears to be governed by either of two provisions, it is clearly the right of the assessee to claim that he should be taxed under that one which leaves him with a lighter burden. Meaning thereby, if, exemption is available to the assessee in two or more sections then the choice is for the assessee under which section exemption has to be claimed.
Society has been mainly to add car, motorcycle and scooter - Another objection of Ld. CIT(E), our attention was drawn by the AR to the audited balance sheet, where it is clearly shown that during the F.Y. 2015-16 value of car, motorcycle and scooter were 2.17 lakh and in 2015-16 it were 2.30 lakh and the society surplus amount was @ 5.52 % only. We are in agreement with the assessee that the surplus @ 5.52 % cannot be termed as higher and certainly to run an institute, the vehicles are required, therefore, the observation of the CIT(E) is not correct to the extent that the emphasized of the society has been mainly to add car, motorcycle and scooter. In fact total receipts had been shown at ₹ 182,76,252/- during the F.Y. 2015-16, however, the value of the car, motorcycles and scooter were 2.30 lakh only, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that observation of the CIT(E) was not correct.
Society is mainly emphasizing for creation of fixed assets rather than redeployment funds towards education - the apprehension and assumption of the CIT(E) that society must be charging some funds, just based on the assumption and surmises and have no logical reasoning.
Further observation with regard to salary structure and quality of education, we are of the view that lower salary cannot be made best to conclude that quality of education has been comprised and not in sync with the instruction issued by Maharaja Ranjit Singh State Technical University, Bathinda, while providing affiliation to an entity. On the aforesaid observation and conclusion, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to get registration u/s 12A of the Act and hence, we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee society. - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1530
Accrual of income - income recognition - recognizing the notional interest income on outstanding debts when the interest is the subject matter of a decree before the Court - Addition on account of interest accrued on outstanding debt - assessee acquired the right of suit as per assignment deed and was entitled to recover the debt along with interest and cost of suit as per the deed of assignment of right - interest on debt which was receivable by Bank of Baroda, was now receivable to the assessee and as the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting the assessee was required to offer interest income on debts on accrual basis - HELD THAT:- We find that issue in controversy is covered in favour of the assessee by assessee’s own case [2016 (12) TMI 1771 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is no dispute on the facts about the assessee acquiring the debts from the Bank of Baroda with the borrowed funds, the loan creditors have not paid interest income to either bank or to the assessee, assessee has not recognised the income for all the assessment years under consideration etc. The legal issue i.e. to be decided on the right to recover the interest income by the assessee during the pendency of suit in Bombay City Civil Court.
As examined the interpretation of the said section and the relevant explanation is already incorporated in the above paras of this order. Also see Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ltd [2005 (7) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Also considered the reasoning given by the CIT (A) in paras 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 of his order. Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the conclusion drawn by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, relevant grounds raised by the Revenue in all the four appeals are dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1529
Appointment of insolvency resolution professional - HELD THAT:- If more than 30 days have passed after the appointment of Interim Resolution Professional, learned Adjudicating Authority will take steps to appoint insolvency resolution professional, and, if so required, may allow the Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional to function as Insolvency Resolution Professional.
In view stand taken by Interim Resolution Professional, the appellant is allowed to take part in the meeting of creditors and to deliberate in accordance with law.
We have not decided the issue as to whether the Financial Creditor - State Bank of India, if taken over the possession of the land of the Corporate Debtor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the said Financial Creditor can be asked to hand over the possession of such land, which may be decided by the learned Adjudicating Authority, if such question is raised by Insolvency Resolution Professional or any Creditor or any other aggrieved person - Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1528
Notice of Motion for recalling the order - condonation of delay of 110 days in taking out the application and for setting aside the order dated 19th November, 2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules rejecting the Revenue's appeal - HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs of ₹ 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from today and the same be recovered from the persons, who are the defaulting officers, in the present case.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1527
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of compulsory acquisition by NHAI - deemed consideration under Section 50C - HELD THAT:- Addition was wrongly made and the assessee has furnished all material facts before the AO under these facts the assessing officer ought not to have levied the penalty. We find force into the contention of the assessee that in the penalty proceeding the AO should consider the facts in right perspective. He should come to a specific finding with regard to concealment of income. In the considered view, the explanation as given by the assessee ought to have been considered by the AO, AO should not to have passed penalty order in a mechanical way merely on the assumption that the assessee has accepted the charge of concealment of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1526
Grant of Default Bail - whether the Petitioner was entitled to 'default bail' with effect from 3rd or 4th January, 2017 onwards and, in any case on 11th January, 2017 when his application for "regular bail" was rejected by the Gauhati High Court?
Held that:- The right to get 'default bail' is a very important right. Ours is a country where millions of our countrymen are totally illiterate and not aware of their rights. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt (supra) has held that the Accused must apply for grant of 'default bail'. As far as Section 167 of the Code is concerned, Explanation I to Section 167 provides that notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified (i.e. 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be), the Accused can be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.
Even though the period had expired, the Accused would be deemed to be in legal custody till he does not furnish bail. The requirement is of furnishing of bail. The Accused does not have to make out any grounds for grant of bail. He does not have to file a detailed application. All he has to aver in the application is that since 60/90 days have expired and charge-sheet has not been filed, he is entitled to bail and is willing to furnish bail. This indefeasible right cannot be defeated by filing the charge-sheet after the Accused has offered to furnish bail.
This Court in a large number of judgments has held that the right to legal aid is also a fundamental right. Legal aid has to be competent legal aid and, therefore, it is the duty of the counsel representing the Accused whether they are paid counsel or legal aid counsel to inform the Accused that on the expiry of the statutory period of 60/90 days, they are entitled to 'default bail'. In my view, the magistrate should also not encourage wrongful detention and must inform the Accused of his right. In case the Accused still does not want to exercise his right then he shall remain in custody but if he chooses to exercise his right and is willing to furnish bail he must be enlarged on bail.
Application allowed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1525
Corporate insolvency process - delay in giving possession of flat by builder - cancel the allotment and refund agreed by builder but not initiated - who can claim to be an 'Operational Creditor' - whether a person who has entered into agreement for purchase of a 'flat' or 'shop' or 'any immovable property' is Operational Creditor or not? - whether appellants are 'Operational Creditor' and are entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Respondents - 'Corporate Debtor' under Section 8 and 9 of the 'I & B Code? - HELD THAT:- The letter of allotment is not an agreement to sell and the terms condition aforesaid is conditional as the question of default will arise, once 'Corporate Debtor' receives the notice of cancellation from the allottee(s) and if the amount is not paid.
Apart from the fact that the appellants are merely an allottee of a flat and does not come within the meaning of 'Operational Creditor,' as held by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, there appears to be a variation in their claim amount, though the notice under Section 8 and 9 or application under Section 9 has not been filed.
The appellants initially claimed that they are entitled for refund of total amount. deposited by them after one year, the flat having not completed within time along with 19% interest. But before the Tribunal the appellants claimed total amount along with 18% interest. On the other hand, as per the Allotment Letter at paragraph 3(b), the allottee is entitled to get refund of amount, subject to deduction of 15% of the total cost on receipt of allottees(s) application for cancellation. At paragraph 3(d) of the letter of allotment has further mentioned that if the amount paid by the allottee(s) is less than the amount deducted under (a) above, the allottee shall pay to the Company, deficient amount to the extent of 15% as mentioned therein. Thus we find there is a variation of claim amount i.e. the amount of debt alleged to have been defaulted by the respondent.
While we hold that the appellants are not 'Operational Creditor', we also hold that there is confusion about the actual amount of default of debt and the date of notice for cancellation forwarded by appellant, the petition under Section 9 is fit to be rejected.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1524
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - existence of admitted debt - Whether the Petitioner complied with requisite provisions of Sec 9 of IBC 2016 to maintain the petition? - HELD THAT:- The record do not show that there is any dispute of debt before issuing demand notice to pay the debt 'in question. All the contentions with regard to dispute/counter claim /arbitration are after thought that too after receiving the demand notice issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the facts prima facie show that there is an admitted debt and the respondent is unable to pay debt in question.
The Respondent, though given sufficient time by this Tribunal to come out with any solution to resolve outstanding dues, have not come with any solution,more over they have raised un-tenable and baseless grounds. In fact, the respondent has admitted that they are unable to clear outstanding due to several difficulties. Though circumstances warrant that the Company is liable to be liquidated, an effort should be made through CIRP to find any possibility of any resolution. Hence, it is a fit case for admission.
In the result the Company Petition is admitted by exercising the powers UIS 9(5)(i) IBC 2016
-
2017 (8) TMI 1523
Denial of natural justice - Insolvency procedure - no opportunity to file a written objection or a written document disputing or dealing with the claim put forward by the petitioner in the proceedings before the NCLT - HELD THAT:- The respondent no.3 had applied under Section 9 of the Code of 2016. Sree Metaliks Limited (2017 (4) TMI 1248 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT) is of the view that NCLT has adhere with the principles of natural justice. The respondents before the NCLT is entitled to one opportunity of hearing. Hearing would include an opportunity to file a written objection to the application as a party is heard on the basis of the pleadings before the adjudicating authority.
NCLT ought to have granted the petitioner one opportunity to file written objection. Such opportunity was not extended to the petitioner before me. There is an apparent breach of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the proceeding by the NCLT. There can be an occasion when the NCLT may be required to admit the petition and pass an ex-parte ad-interim order. It can do so for the reasons recorded in writing. NCLT may deny a respondent the opportunity to file a written objection. Again the NCLT has given reasons for the same. Denial of such opportunity should be limited to rare cases.
The order passed by the NCLT is appealable. The existence of statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of writ petition, if the writ petitioner is able to demonstrate and substantiate that, there is a breach of fundamental right or that there is breach of principles of natural justice or that the authority has acted without jurisdiction. In the present case, it appears that the NCLT has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order does not contain any reason as to why the petitioner was not allowed an opportunity to file its written objection.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated July 31, 2017.
As the petitioner submits that, his client will file the written objection to the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 within seven days from date. In such circumstances, the petitioner is allowed to do so.
............
|
9911796707
