https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412682 Attachment under a State depositor-protection law could not obstruct control and custody of a corporate debtor's bank accounts during CIRP or liquidation, because the insolvency code prevails to the extent of inconsistency and includes attachment within prohibited actions against the corporate debtor's property. The adjudicating authority could direct removal of that obstruction in insolvency jurisdiction where the asset must be brought under the liquidator's control. However, the later bank-account attachment could not be mixed with an earlier notification relating to other properties of promoters and directors, so the linkage in the impugned order had to be deleted while the substantive relief was maintained. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2021 07:19:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412682 Attachment under a State depositor-protection law could not obstruct control and custody of a corporate debtor's bank accounts during CIRP or liquidation, because the insolvency code prevails to the extent of inconsistency and includes attachment within prohibited actions against the corporate debtor's property. The adjudicating authority could direct removal of that obstruction in insolvency jurisdiction where the asset must be brought under the liquidator's control. However, the later bank-account attachment could not be mixed with an earlier notification relating to other properties of promoters and directors, so the linkage in the impugned order had to be deleted while the substantive relief was maintained. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 20 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412682