The article examines an appellate finding that payments...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be restored.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Case Laws New
Ref Provisions New
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The article examines an appellate finding that payments characterised as managerial remuneration were not fraudulent trading where there is no cogent evidence of intent to defraud and where payments were made in the ordinary course for legitimate services; such payments were therefore not set aside. A distinct post-commencement cheque withdrawal cleared after insolvency commencement was held to reflect awareness of impending insolvency and must be restored to the corporate debtor. Routing receipts through a sister concern or non-payment of statutory dues, without specific pleading or proof of dishonest design, do not alone establish fraudulent or preferential transactions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.