{"id":371541,"date":"2026-01-03T13:30:50","date_gmt":"2026-01-03T08:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=371541"},"modified":"2026-01-03T13:27:32","modified_gmt":"2026-01-03T07:57:32","slug":"outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/","title":{"rendered":"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

As per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India’s newsletter, applications for avoidance of fraudulent transactions involving amounts more than Rs 1.2 lakh crore (i.e. USD 13 billion) are pending for adjudication before the tribunals as of June 2025.<\/p>\n

Relatively recently, the Supreme Court of United Kingdom in a landmark decision passed in Bilta (UK) Ltd.<\/span> v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd.<\/span><\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> (Bilta UK), held that Section 213(2), UK Insolvency Act, 1986<\/a> (IA 1986), does not restrict its scope only to the directors and other “insiders” who were directing or managing the business of the company but also include the “outsiders” or third parties to the company. It was further held that the natural meaning of the term “any persons who were knowingly parties” to the carrying on of the business of the company for fraudulent purpose employed in the Section 213(2) is wide enough to cover not only the “insiders” but also persons who were dealing with the company if they knowingly were parties to the fraudulent business activities in which the company was engaged. Such persons could include those who transacted with the company in the knowledge that by those transactions the company was carrying on its business for a fraudulent purpose.<\/p>\n

The above stance taken by the Supreme Court of United Kingdom has sparked a much needed introspection as to whether — provisions of Section 66(1)<\/a>, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (Code) can be made applicable to the third parties or outsiders to the company undergoing insolvency or liquidation in India. As, contrary to the Supreme Court of United Kingdom, the Supreme Court of India in Gluckrich Capital (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. State of W.B.<\/span><\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> (Gluckrich), held that remedy for avoidance of the fraudulent transaction is not available under Section 66(1)<\/a> of the Code<\/span><\/a>, against a third party to a company undergoing insolvency. Following the Gluckrich Case<\/span><\/span><\/a>, which is rather sub silentio and passed by the Supreme Court in a clarification application sitting in criminal jurisdiction, the insolvency tribunals in India have adopted a simpler approach to limit the application for seeking avoidance of fraudulent transactions only to the related parties of the company undergoing insolvency or liquidation.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Why it matters?<\/h2>\n

As per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India’s newsletter, applications for avoidance of fraudulent transactions involving amounts more than Rs 1.2 lakh crore (i.e. USD 13 billion) are pending for adjudication before the tribunals as of June 2025. With the pro Gluckrich stance of the tribunals, the recovery of proceeds of fraud shall be restricted only from the management and related parties of the company and not from the “outsiders” including transacting parties, which are otherwise cash rich entities specifically floated for fraudulently fishing out the last pile of cash from the company’s account.<\/p>\n

Purposive interpretation warranted<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court of United Kingdom has rightly applied the purposive interpretation of the term “any persons who were knowingly parties” deployed in the Section 213(2) of the IA 1986 to held that it creates civil liability where a person is knowingly involved in fraud when he or she knowingly becomes a party to the carrying on of business by a company with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. Liability under Section 213(2) depends upon dishonest participation and it exists to discourage such participation by the outsiders to the company. The court also noted that while other provisions of the Part IV Chapter X of the IA 1986 are targeted toward persons involved in management, promotion and formation of the company, the ambit of Section 213(2) is extended to apply not only to insiders or related parties but also to other persons who were knowingly parties to the frauds.<\/p>\n

Provisions of the Section 66(1)<\/span><\/a> of the Code<\/span><\/a> and Section 213(2) of the IA 1986 are pari materia. Under Section 66(1)<\/span><\/a> of the Code<\/span><\/a>, the Insolvency Tribunal, where it finds that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose, is empowered to pass an order directing any persons who were knowingly parties to such conduct to contribute to the assets of the company.<\/p>\n

Further, Section 66(2)<\/a> of the Code<\/a> is designed to make the delinquent directors liable for the potential loss caused to the creditors of the company. While Section 66(1)<\/a> deals with “fraudulent trading”, Section 66(2)<\/a> deals with “wrongful trading”. The liability imposed under Section 66(1)<\/a> is much wider and applicable to “any persons” who were knowingly parties to the carrying on of the business with a dishonest intention to defraud the creditors.4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

In Jaypee Infratech Ltd.<\/span> Interim Resolution Professional<\/span> v.<\/span> Axis Bank Ltd.<\/span><\/span><\/a>5<\/sup><\/a>, the Supreme Court while interpreting other provisions of the Code, held that, it remains trite that an interpretation that defeats the scheme, intent and object of the statutory provision is to be eschewed and for that matter, if necessary, by applying the principles of purposive interpretation rather than literal. Further, it is pertinent to note that excluding a transacting third party who knowingly assisted the company in carrying out a fraudulent transaction from the ambit of Section 66(1)<\/span><\/a> of the Code<\/span><\/a> would also frustrate the principle of pari delicto — where both parties are equally responsible for a fraudulent act, the courts will not assist either, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Immani Appa Rao<\/span> v.<\/span> Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi<\/span><\/span><\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Therefore, in light of the decision of Supreme Court of United Kingdom in Bilta (UK) Case<\/span><\/span><\/a>7<\/sup><\/a>, it would be essential to introspect the pro Gluckrich stance and adopt a purposive interpretation that brings “outsiders” within the ambit of Section 66(1)<\/span><\/a> of the Code<\/span><\/a>. Such an interpretation would strengthen creditor recoveries in long-pending applications for avoidance of fraudulent transactions and open avenues for litigation financing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Insolvency and Commercial Disputes Lawyer Mumbai, India. Author can be reached at: bhavit.baxi@outlook.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2025) 2 WLR 1015 : 2025 UKSC 18.<\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1187<\/a>: (2023) 239 Comp Cas 843.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> See, RBI<\/span> v. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2025 SCC OnLine NCLT 4756<\/span><\/a> and NCLAT in Royal India Corpn. Ltd. v. Nandkishor Vishnupant Deshpande<\/span><\/a><\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine NCLAT 640<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Vijendra Kumar Jain<\/span> v. Nitin Ramchandra Jhadav<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine NCLT 13392.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> (2020) 8 SCC 401<\/span><\/a> : (2020) 221 Comp Cas 625.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 1961 SCC OnLine SC 43<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Bilta (UK) Ltd.<\/span> v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd.<\/span>, (2025) 2 WLR 1015 : 2025 UKSC 18.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Bhavit Baxi*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":371550,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[96120,96118,96124,96123,96117,95566,96116,96121,96119,96122],"class_list":["post-371541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-avoidance-of-transactions-india","tag-bilta-uk-case","tag-comparative-insolvency-law","tag-fraudulent-trading-jurisprudence","tag-fraudulent-transactions-ibc","tag-ibc-case-law","tag-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-section-66","tag-insolvency-law-analysis","tag-outsiders-in-fraudulent-trading","tag-third-party-liability-ibc"],"yoast_head":"\nOutsiders in Fraudulent Transactions under Section 66 IBC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Analysis of Section 66 IBC and third-party liability for fraudulent transactions, with insights from the UK Supreme Court's Bilta ruling.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Analysis of Section 66 IBC and third-party liability for fraudulent transactions, with insights from the UK Supreme Court's Bilta ruling.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-01-03T08:00:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/\",\"name\":\"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions under Section 66 IBC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-01-03T08:00:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Analysis of Section 66 IBC and third-party liability for fraudulent transactions, with insights from the UK Supreme Court's Bilta ruling.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Outsiders in fraudulent transactions under Section 66 IBC\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions under Section 66 IBC | SCC Times","description":"Analysis of Section 66 IBC and third-party liability for fraudulent transactions, with insights from the UK Supreme Court's Bilta ruling.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context","og_description":"Analysis of Section 66 IBC and third-party liability for fraudulent transactions, with insights from the UK Supreme Court's Bilta ruling.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-01-03T08:00:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/","name":"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions under Section 66 IBC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp","datePublished":"2026-01-03T08:00:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Analysis of Section 66 IBC and third-party liability for fraudulent transactions, with insights from the UK Supreme Court's Bilta ruling.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Outsiders in fraudulent transactions under Section 66 IBC"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/03\/outsiders-fraudulent-transactions-section-66-ibc-bilta-uk\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Outsiders in Fraudulent Transactions: Applying Bilta (UK) Ltd. v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. in the Indian Context"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Outsiders-in-fraudulent-transactions-under-Section-66-IBC.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":217692,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/05\/nclat-relief-for-consortium-of-banks-which-extended-loans-to-jaiprakash-associates-nclt-order-cancelling-mortgage-of-858-acres-of-land-by-jil-in-favour-of-banks-quashed\/","url_meta":{"origin":371541,"position":0},"title":"NCLAT | Relief for Consortium of Banks which extended loans to Jaiprakash Associates, NCLT order cancelling mortgage of 858 acres of land by JIL in favour of Banks quashed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A 2-Member Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), set aside the order of National Company Law Tribunal (Allahabad), whereby it had cancelled the mortgage of 858 acres of land worth around Rs 5900 crores made by Jaypee Infratech\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":366353,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/12\/avoidance-transactions-under-ibc-legislative-intent-judicial-divergence-and-doctrinal-gaps\/","url_meta":{"origin":371541,"position":1},"title":"Avoidance Transactions Under IBC: Legislative Intent, Judicial Divergence and Doctrinal Gaps","author":"Editor","date":"November 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Harini Srinivasan*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Avoidance Transactions under IBC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Avoidance-Transactions-under-IBC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Avoidance-Transactions-under-IBC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Avoidance-Transactions-under-IBC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Avoidance-Transactions-under-IBC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214891,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/21\/nclat-rejection-of-application-under-s-9-ibc-upheld-where-cirp-initiated-with-fraudulent-and-malicious-intent\/","url_meta":{"origin":371541,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT | Rejection of application under S. 9 IBC upheld where CIRP initiated with ‘fraudulent and malicious’ intent","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Bench of S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice A.I.S Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) upheld the impugned decision whereby the appellant's (Operational Creditor's) application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, filed against the respondent (Corporate Debtor) was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275467,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/12\/whether-adjudicating-authority-is-competent-to-pass-order-under-section-66-of-ibc-during-subsistence-of-moratorium-under-section-14-of-ibc-nclat-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":371541,"position":3},"title":"Whether Adjudicating Authority is competent to pass order under Section 66 of IBC during subsistence of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC? NCLAT answers","author":"Editor","date":"October 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal : While deciding an issue as to whether the adjudicating authority is competent to pass an order under S. 66 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 during the subsistence of moratorium under S. 14 of IBC, a 3-judge bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/NCLAT_New.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291321,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/04\/intent-corporate-debtor-irrelevant-preferential-transaction-nclat-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":371541,"position":4},"title":"Intent of Corporate Debtor irrelevant in establishing existence of preferential transaction: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"May 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"There is no need to prove any fraudulent intent for a preferential transaction as per S. 43 of the IBC.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297649,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/26\/preference-and-exclusion-transfers-made-ordinary-course-of-business-under-ibc-2016\/","url_meta":{"origin":371541,"position":5},"title":"Preference and the Exclusion of Transfers Made in the \u201cOrdinary Course of Business\u201d Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sriram Venkatavaradan and Saai Sudharsan Sathiyamoorthy\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ordinary course of business","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ordinary-course-of-business.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ordinary-course-of-business.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ordinary-course-of-business.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/ordinary-course-of-business.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=371541"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371541\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":371552,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371541\/revisions\/371552"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/371550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}