TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Condones Delay in Appeal Filing; Dismisses Appeal on Impleadment Rejection, Leaves Legal Question Open.</h1> <h3>Maya Gupta Versus Inquest Fintech Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal condoned a two-day delay in e-filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal contested the Adjudicating ... Assignment of debt under Sections 43, 45, 50 & 66 of IBC, 2016 before the adjudication of Avoidance/PUFE of proceedings by Liquidator - HELD THAT:- The issue which is sought to be raised by the appellant need not be entertained and decided in the appeal which has been filed by the Liquidator. The appeal is dismissed. Issues involved: Delay in e-filing appeal, rejection of impleadment application by Adjudicating Authority, interpretation of Regulation 37 (A) u/s IBC, 2016.Delay in e-filing appeal:The Appellate Tribunal condoned a two-day delay in e-filing the appeal after finding a sufficient cause for the delay.Rejection of impleadment application by Adjudicating Authority:The appeal was filed against the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 11.08.2023, which rejected I.A. No. 35 of 2022, 36 of 2022, 57 of 2022 filed by the 'Assignee' seeking impleadment in other proceedings. The liquidator, not the 'Assignee,' appealed the rejection.Interpretation of Regulation 37 (A) u/s IBC, 2016:The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion regarding the assignment of debt by the liquidator under Sections 43, 45, 50 & 66 of IBC, 2016 was contrary to Regulation 37 (A). Regulation 37 (A) allows a liquidator to assign a not readily realisable asset through a transparent process, subject to certain conditions.The Tribunal noted that the issue raised by the appellant need not be decided in the current appeal filed by the Liquidator. However, the Tribunal left open the question of law expressed by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 24 (b) & (f) to be decided in a more suitable case. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
