Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order directing a transaction audit and allowing the application for dissolution u/s 54 of the IBC and Regulation 14 of the Liquidation Regulations. The scheme of the IBC mandates that dissolution is a subsequent step after complete liquidation, which was not undertaken in this case. The CIRP was completed without a resolution plan, despite publication of Form-G twice. No liquidation order was passed u/s 33(1). Since the CoC, consisting of the sole Financial Creditor who initiated CIRP, decided not to contribute towards liquidation costs and the CIRP period ended, the RP should have intimated the Registrar of Companies for striking off the company's name instead of resorting to Section 54. The Appellate Tribunal's judgment in Shyson Thomas was distinguished as a case where the Adjudicating Authority exercised its jurisdiction to direct dissolution.
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order directing a transaction audit and allowing the application for dissolution u/s 54 of the IBC and Regulation 14 of the Liquidation Regulations. The scheme of the IBC mandates that dissolution is a subsequent step after complete liquidation, which was not undertaken in this case. The CIRP was completed without a resolution plan, despite publication of Form-G twice. No liquidation order was passed u/s 33(1). Since the CoC, consisting of the sole Financial Creditor who initiated CIRP, decided not to contribute towards liquidation costs and the CIRP period ended, the RP should have intimated the Registrar of Companies for striking off the company's name instead of resorting to Section 54. The Appellate Tribunal's judgment in Shyson Thomas was distinguished as a case where the Adjudicating Authority exercised its jurisdiction to direct dissolution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
