TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the attachment of the corporate debtor's assets under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 could be sustained in view of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the finding that the entity said to be the beneficiary was not a financial establishment.
Analysis: The attachment had been made under the MPID Act on the premise that the entity in question was a financial establishment. The record also showed that the resolution professional was required to take control and custody of the corporate debtor's assets and preserve them as a going concern. The statutory scheme of the MPID Act contemplated inquiry by the designated court in respect of attachments, while the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code contained a non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect over inconsistent laws. Since the earlier High Court ruling had held that the entity was not a financial establishment, the foundation for the MPID attachment could not survive. The later insolvency regime therefore prevailed to the extent of inconsistency, and the attachment stood in the way of the insolvency process and value maximisation.
Conclusion: The attachment under the MPID Act was held to be invalid, and the resolution professional was permitted to proceed with the corporate debtor's assets under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
TaxTMI 
