https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447644 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging liquidation orders under Section 66 of IBC. The appellant resolution applicant was declared ineligible under Section 29A(g) after forensic audit revealed fraudulent transactions worth Rs. 29,75,73,550. The tribunal held that forensic audit reports by independent expert agencies are reliable for determining fraudulent transactions, even when statutory auditors don't identify them. The adjudicating authority properly exercised powers under Section 33(1) to reject the resolution plan and order liquidation after 1,469 days exceeded the 330-day CIRP limit. Section 29A(g) prevents persons involved in fraudulent transactions from regaining control without clearing debts. en-us Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2024 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447644 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging liquidation orders under Section 66 of IBC. The appellant resolution applicant was declared ineligible under Section 29A(g) after forensic audit revealed fraudulent transactions worth Rs. 29,75,73,550. The tribunal held that forensic audit reports by independent expert agencies are reliable for determining fraudulent transactions, even when statutory auditors don't identify them. The adjudicating authority properly exercised powers under Section 33(1) to reject the resolution plan and order liquidation after 1,469 days exceeded the 330-day CIRP limit. Section 29A(g) prevents persons involved in fraudulent transactions from regaining control without clearing debts. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447644