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...
The NCLAT held that the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) acted in deference to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which is paramount. Although the Adjudicating Authority observed irregularities and non-compliance with the CIRP Regulations by the RP, the NCLAT modified the order to expunge those adverse remarks against the RP's performance and conduct. The RP had taken necessary steps envisaged under the IBC for conducting the CIRP, including preparing the Information Memorandum, inviting Expressions of Interest, appointing a Transaction Auditor, and filing applications u/ss 43 and 66. The CoC had approved the resolution plan with the requisite majority, exercising its commercial wisdom. Therefore, the RP cannot be blamed for breaching the IBC by acting on the CoC's decision. The rest of the Adjudicating Authority's order remained unchanged.
The NCLAT held that the erstwhile Resolution Professional (RP) acted in deference to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), which is paramount. Although the Adjudicating Authority observed irregularities and non-compliance with the CIRP Regulations by the RP, the NCLAT modified the order to expunge those adverse remarks against the RP's performance and conduct. The RP had taken necessary steps envisaged under the IBC for conducting the CIRP, including preparing the Information Memorandum, inviting Expressions of Interest, appointing a Transaction Auditor, and filing applications u/ss 43 and 66. The CoC had approved the resolution plan with the requisite majority, exercising its commercial wisdom. Therefore, the RP cannot be blamed for breaching the IBC by acting on the CoC's decision. The rest of the Adjudicating Authority's order remained unchanged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
