https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432559 The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Interim Application as the issues did not solely arise from the insolvency of the corporate debtor, and the NCLT lacked authority in such matters. Regarding the applicability of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC to the monies deposited by the appellant in the Trial Court, the Court ruled that the moratorium did not extend to these funds as they were not considered assets of the appellant at the time of insolvency commencement. Consequently, the respondent was permitted to withdraw the deposited amount. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jan 2023 15:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432559 The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Interim Application as the issues did not solely arise from the insolvency of the corporate debtor, and the NCLT lacked authority in such matters. Regarding the applicability of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC to the monies deposited by the appellant in the Trial Court, the Court ruled that the moratorium did not extend to these funds as they were not considered assets of the appellant at the time of insolvency commencement. Consequently, the respondent was permitted to withdraw the deposited amount. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432559