Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
The NCLAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that disallowed the Resolution Professional's application under Section 66 of the IBC regarding Transactions Nos. 1 and 3 with Respondents 7 and 8. The Tribunal held that the transactions were fraudulent, emphasizing the one-sided nature of the MoU in Transaction No. 1 and the forensic auditor's report confirming fraud in Transaction No. 3. It rejected arguments limiting the look-back period for Section 66 inquiries, affirming the provision's purpose to scrutinize fraudulent transactions regardless of timing. The decision underscores the necessity of examining parties' intent and transactional structures to protect creditors, thereby restoring the Resolution Professional's claim for recovery.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order that disallowed the Resolution Professional's application under Section 66 of the IBC regarding Transactions Nos. 1 and 3 with Respondents 7 and 8. The Tribunal held that the transactions were fraudulent, emphasizing the one-sided nature of the MoU in Transaction No. 1 and the forensic auditor's report confirming fraud in Transaction No. 3. It rejected arguments limiting the look-back period for Section 66 inquiries, affirming the provision's purpose to scrutinize fraudulent transactions regardless of timing. The decision underscores the necessity of examining parties' intent and transactional structures to protect creditors, thereby restoring the Resolution Professional's claim for recovery.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
