Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Dismissed petition due to ongoing NCLT proceedings for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Liberty granted for future legal action. The court dismissed the petition as premature due to ongoing proceedings before the NCLT for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was ruled that the NCLT should ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Dismissed petition due to ongoing NCLT proceedings for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Liberty granted for future legal action.
The court dismissed the petition as premature due to ongoing proceedings before the NCLT for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was ruled that the NCLT should assess applications under Section 25(2)(j) and their impact on Resolution Plans in accordance with Section 29A. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue appropriate legal action at the suitable stage. No costs were awarded in the matter.
Issues: Prayer for writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to pass directions regarding Avoidance Applications, Resolution Plans, and Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Premature petition challenging CIRP proceedings of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Interpretation of Section 26 of the Code in relation to applications under Section 25(2)(j) and Section 29A.
Analysis: The petitioner sought relief through a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to pass guidelines under Section 196 of the Code. The petitioner argued that Avoidance Applications should be addressed before allowing Promoters to file Resolution Plans under Section 29A(g) of the Code. The court considered the judgment in Venus Recruiters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, highlighting that Resolution Professionals must disclose applications under Section 25(2)(j) of the Code when submitting Resolution Plans for approval. The court emphasized that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) should assess such applications and their impact on Resolution Plans, especially concerning Section 29A of the Code.
The respondent contended that the NCLT should determine the procedure for considering applications under Section 25(2)(j) and implementing Section 29A. The court noted that the CIRP proceedings for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were stayed separately. It was held that Section 26 of the Code empowers the NCLT to evaluate applications under Section 25(2)(j) and Section 29A during the Resolution Plan assessment or earlier. The court cited the purpose of timely disclosure of objectionable transactions in Resolution Plans and emphasized that such applications should not extend beyond the CIRP process.
The court dismissed the petition as premature due to ongoing proceedings before the NCLT for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was ruled that the NCLT should assess applications under Section 25(2)(j) and their impact on Resolution Plans in accordance with Section 29A. The petitioner was granted the liberty to pursue appropriate legal action at the suitable stage. No costs were awarded in the matter.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
