Just a moment...
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. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, while ordering convening of creditors' meetings under a scheme of arrangement, the Tribunal could also direct the creditors to maintain status quo, refrain from classifying the debtor's account as NPA, and avoid coercive steps pending consideration of the scheme.
Analysis: In proceedings under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the first motion is meant to consider convening meetings of creditors or members so that the proposed arrangement may be placed before them for approval by the prescribed majority. The Tribunal was justified in directing convening of the meetings and appointing the necessary officers for that purpose. However, the further direction restraining creditors from acting in accordance with their contractual rights and regulatory obligations, including classification of the account under the RBI framework and taking coercive steps, was found to be unnecessary and beyond the proper scope of the first-motion stage. The approval process itself depends on the creditors' independent decision, and such a blanket restraint was not warranted.
Conclusion: The direction imposing status quo and restraining NPA classification and coercive action was set aside, while the rest of the impugned order was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: At the first-motion stage of a scheme under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal may facilitate convening of meetings but should not impose blanket restraints that interfere with creditors' regulatory and contractual rights pending consideration of the scheme.