https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434155 The Tribunal held that Regulation 35-A's timelines are directory, not mandatory, and actions taken by the RP beyond the prescribed period cannot be deemed void solely due to the delay. The RP's delays were justified due to non-cooperation from the suspended management and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding preferential and fraudulent transactions, the Tribunal found multiple transactions to be preferential and fraudulent under Sections 43 and 66 of the IBC. The Respondents were directed to repay the sums received and reverse the siphoned amounts, and the adverse observations against the RP were expunged. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Feb 2023 06:48:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434155 The Tribunal held that Regulation 35-A's timelines are directory, not mandatory, and actions taken by the RP beyond the prescribed period cannot be deemed void solely due to the delay. The RP's delays were justified due to non-cooperation from the suspended management and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding preferential and fraudulent transactions, the Tribunal found multiple transactions to be preferential and fraudulent under Sections 43 and 66 of the IBC. The Respondents were directed to repay the sums received and reverse the siphoned amounts, and the adverse observations against the RP were expunged. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434155