Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the appellant qualified as a secured financial creditor based on charge registration with CERSAI under Regulation 21 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The tribunal applied the principle of lex posterior derogat priori, ruling that IBC provisions, being later enacted and containing a non-obstante clause under Section 238, override inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The court emphasized that Regulation 21 uses 'or' between sub-clauses, creating alternative methods to prove security interest through either RoC registration under Section 77 of Companies Act or CERSAI registration. Since the appellant's charge was registered with CERSAI, registration with RoC was not mandatory for secured creditor status under the insolvency framework.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
