Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“There is a clear distinction between the Avoidance Applications that may be filed by the Resolution Professional in view of Section 25(2)(j), for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III of the IBC, and the applications that may be filed in respect of the fraudulent trading or wrongful trading under Section 66, which falls under Chapter VI of the IBC.”
The immunity granted by the moratorium order issued under Section 14 of the IBC can only be obtained by a corporate debtor and not by a natural person such as the present accused, who was the Director of the corporate debtor.
The claims pertaining to the transfer fees, etc., cannot be dealt with by courts or tribunals as the same relates to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors for they are the best persons to determine their interests, and any such interference is non-justiciable except as provided by Section 30(2) of IBC 2016.
In the instant case, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence neither submitted proof of claim nor responded to a specific communication via an e-mail addressed to Senior Intelligence Officer. This is a case where despite knowledge, the statutory authorities chose not to submit their proof of claim.
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi –The Coram of P.S.N Prasad, Judicial Member and Narender Kumar Bhola, Technical Member
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain, Judicial Member and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra, Technical Member
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI): Dr Mukulita Vijayawargiya (Whole Time Member, IBBI) disposed of a show-cause notice issued to a