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...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to examine and decide the issues in a comprehensive manner, including the application of the appellant in I.A. No. 1412 of 2023, preferably within four weeks. The NCLAT held that there is an absolute bar on recovery of any property occupied or possessed by the Corporate Debtor u/s 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The AA had passed a non-speaking order merely based on the consent of the Resolution Professional (RP) to release the property, without examining the maintainability of such applications by the owner/lessor in view of Section 14(1)(d). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not appear to have taken a final decision with proper voting regarding the vacation of the registered office. The RP's decision to release the property was his own and not confirmed by the CoC. The NCLAT found that the AA should have first examined whether it is possible to allow such applications in view of the express provisions of Section 14(1)(d), even if supported by the CoC. The appeal was allowed.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to examine and decide the issues in a comprehensive manner, including the application of the appellant in I.A. No. 1412 of 2023, preferably within four weeks. The NCLAT held that there is an absolute bar on recovery of any property occupied or possessed by the Corporate Debtor u/s 14(1)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The AA had passed a non-speaking order merely based on the consent of the Resolution Professional (RP) to release the property, without examining the maintainability of such applications by the owner/lessor in view of Section 14(1)(d). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not appear to have taken a final decision with proper voting regarding the vacation of the registered office. The RP's decision to release the property was his own and not confirmed by the CoC. The NCLAT found that the AA should have first examined whether it is possible to allow such applications in view of the express provisions of Section 14(1)(d), even if supported by the CoC. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
