https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289092 Avoidance relief under the insolvency framework was held to require prior compliance with the Resolution Professional's statutory duty to form an independent opinion and determine avoidable transactions before moving the Adjudicating Authority. That precondition was not shown on the record, so the avoidance application failed. On merits, the alleged preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transactions, including the brand licence arrangements, were not proved because the forensic material was tentative and inconclusive, and no reliable basis for recovery or contribution was established. A post-approval challenge to the brand-related arrangement was also not maintainable, as the resolution plan had attained finality and could not be reopened absent fraud or breach of section 30(2). en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jul 2020 10:44:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289092 Avoidance relief under the insolvency framework was held to require prior compliance with the Resolution Professional's statutory duty to form an independent opinion and determine avoidable transactions before moving the Adjudicating Authority. That precondition was not shown on the record, so the avoidance application failed. On merits, the alleged preferential, undervalued and fraudulent transactions, including the brand licence arrangements, were not proved because the forensic material was tentative and inconclusive, and no reliable basis for recovery or contribution was established. A post-approval challenge to the brand-related arrangement was also not maintainable, as the resolution plan had attained finality and could not be reopened absent fraud or breach of section 30(2). Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289092