SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1345

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, INDU MALHOTRA
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan, Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Ankur Saigal, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Delay, if any, is condoned.

3. Given Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-Tax Act. We may also refer in this Connection to Dena Bank vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and its progeny, making it clear that income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons.

4. We are of the view that the High Court of Delhi, is, therefore, correct in law.

5. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

6. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top