https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389457 The appeal was filed against an order directing the Liquidator to collect a specific amount from DRT-II Chennai. The Appellant, a secured Creditor, challenged the sustainability of the direction, emphasizing its security interest. The CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, leading to liquidation due to the lack of a Resolution Plan. The tribunal interpreted the duties of the Liquidator under the I&B Code, highlighting the need to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant's right to realize security interest before liquidation was underscored, emphasizing compliance with secured creditors' rights under Section 52 of the I&B Code. The tribunal stayed the direction to the liquidator, remanding the matter to decide on the Appellant Bank's security interest before proceeding with the Corporate Debtor's assets. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:02:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389457 The appeal was filed against an order directing the Liquidator to collect a specific amount from DRT-II Chennai. The Appellant, a secured Creditor, challenged the sustainability of the direction, emphasizing its security interest. The CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor, leading to liquidation due to the lack of a Resolution Plan. The tribunal interpreted the duties of the Liquidator under the I&B Code, highlighting the need to protect the assets of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant's right to realize security interest before liquidation was underscored, emphasizing compliance with secured creditors' rights under Section 52 of the I&B Code. The tribunal stayed the direction to the liquidator, remanding the matter to decide on the Appellant Bank's security interest before proceeding with the Corporate Debtor's assets. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389457