Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“While deciding that whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt arising out of a transaction covered by an agreement or arrangement in writing, it is necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction reflected in the writing.”
“Both the appellate fora, on-going through the evidence did not find existence of any ‘enforceable debt or other liability’. This strikes at the root of the Rajco Steel’s case”
After applying the rule that all the contemporaneous documents are to be read together, to discern the true purport of the contract, Supreme Court said that the parties intended assignment of the debt, i.e., the rents payable.
“This is a case that clamours for the exercise of judicial conscience to address the conundrum of whether an individual’s right to recover arrears in maintenance subsists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in section 125(3) CrPC.”
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 52
Rajasthan High Court: In a case where the secured creditors like Unit Trust of India (‘UTI’) and a workman have preferred their
National Company Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan, J., Chairperson, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, Judicial Member, and Naresh Salecha, Technical member
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi: The Bench of Anant Bijay Singh, J., Judicial Member, and Shreesha Merla, Technical Member,
Gujarat High Court: A.S. Supehia, J. allowed a writ petition directing Bank to deposit PPF amount deducted for settlement of liability. Petitioner
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that a liability in respect
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Deeksha Sethi, MM (NI Act)—06, reiterated that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by
Dwarka Courts, Delhi: Rahul Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter regarding dishonour of cheque, held that mere assertion of non-receipt of
Bombay High Court: A very interesting question was considered by G.S. Kulkarni, J., the question being, whether mere filing of a proceeding
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran*, JJ., quashed the confiscation order of Customs and Central Excise
Delhi High Court: While addressing a matter revolving around Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Subramonium Prasad, J., held that
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that the entire liability outstanding against the borrower
National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai: The Coram of H.V. Subba Rao, Judicial Member addressed the relevancy of insufficiency of stamp duty under
Supreme Court: While dealing with a case involving two controversial terms; “operational debt” and “operational creditor” of IBC, the 3-judge Bench of
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 9
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1