https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407306 Attachment of a corporate debtor's property was upheld where the assets were treated as linked to alleged fraudulent deposit transactions and not immune merely because the debtor was not a financial establishment in the narrow sense. The Calcutta High Court's order was read as requiring disclosure of attached assets, not as directing that the debtor's assets be excluded from sale. Sections 14 and 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not override Section 3 of the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act on these facts, because the moratorium under the Code does not displace depositor-protection attachment and no approved resolution plan had triggered the protective bar. en-us Tue, 04 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 May 2021 08:41:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407306 Attachment of a corporate debtor's property was upheld where the assets were treated as linked to alleged fraudulent deposit transactions and not immune merely because the debtor was not a financial establishment in the narrow sense. The Calcutta High Court's order was read as requiring disclosure of attached assets, not as directing that the debtor's assets be excluded from sale. Sections 14 and 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not override Section 3 of the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act on these facts, because the moratorium under the Code does not displace depositor-protection attachment and no approved resolution plan had triggered the protective bar. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 04 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407306