The Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding that a security deposit had been adjusted against lease rentals during the moratorium, but held that any restoration of that amount must be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate proceedings. It also set aside the impugned order on fraudulent trading because material documents bearing on supply of machinery under the master lease arrangement had not been properly considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after permitting further evidence. The Tribunal further explained the different requirements under section 66(1) and section 66(2) and left open, for reconsideration on remand, whether a third party could be directed to contribute to the corporate debtor's assets.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding that a security deposit had been adjusted against lease rentals during the moratorium, but held that any restoration of that amount must be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate proceedings. It also set aside the impugned order on fraudulent trading because material documents bearing on supply of machinery under the master lease arrangement had not been properly considered; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after permitting further evidence. The Tribunal further explained the different requirements under section 66(1) and section 66(2) and left open, for reconsideration on remand, whether a third party could be directed to contribute to the corporate debtor's assets.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
