https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304759 Supersession of a board under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 was treated as legally distinct from suspension of directors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: supersession caused immediate vacation of office, while suspension under the Code left directors in office but without management powers. On that basis, notice under Section 24(3)(b) was confined to members of the suspended board. Directors who had already vacated office were not treated as suspended directors, and the FSP framework did not expand their statutory participation rights. They were therefore not entitled, as of right, to notice of committee of creditors meetings, participation, or copies of the resolution plan and connected documents. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2022 22:41:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304759 Supersession of a board under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 was treated as legally distinct from suspension of directors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: supersession caused immediate vacation of office, while suspension under the Code left directors in office but without management powers. On that basis, notice under Section 24(3)(b) was confined to members of the suspended board. Directors who had already vacated office were not treated as suspended directors, and the FSP framework did not expand their statutory participation rights. They were therefore not entitled, as of right, to notice of committee of creditors meetings, participation, or copies of the resolution plan and connected documents. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304759