https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298757 Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as barring attachment of a corporate debtor's property for pre-CIRP offences, and its protection was read retrospectively to preserve the insolvency and liquidation process. The Code's overriding effect under Section 238 was applied to give priority to the insolvency regime over the competing Maharashtra protection law, because continued attachment would prejudice creditors and obstruct realisation and distribution of assets. The assets were therefore treated as liquidation assets, and the impugned attachment order and notification were set aside to the extent necessary to require handover of the assets to the liquidator. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Nov 2021 09:17:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298757 Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was treated as barring attachment of a corporate debtor's property for pre-CIRP offences, and its protection was read retrospectively to preserve the insolvency and liquidation process. The Code's overriding effect under Section 238 was applied to give priority to the insolvency regime over the competing Maharashtra protection law, because continued attachment would prejudice creditors and obstruct realisation and distribution of assets. The assets were therefore treated as liquidation assets, and the impugned attachment order and notification were set aside to the extent necessary to require handover of the assets to the liquidator. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 15 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298757