Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, addressed the issue of forfeiture of INR 10 Crores by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) led by State Bank of India (SBI) and the alleged restraint by CoC. The Tribunal held that the forfeiture was lawful u/s Resolution Plan terms. The Appellant's failure to provide valid bank guarantees and meet financial commitments justified the forfeiture. The CoC's actions were deemed appropriate, and the Appellant's contentions were rejected. The Tribunal also found the Appellant's contradictory stance on the nature of the deposit. Referring to IBBI, the Tribunal concluded that there was no cause to proceed u/s Section 74(3) of the Code against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the forfeiture as per Resolution Plan and CIRP Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
