<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds Wilful Defaulter Status Despite OTS and CIRP; Directors Held Liable for Fund Diversion.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75962</link>
    <description>Declaration of Wilful Defaulter of the petitioner - Liability of Directors - The High Court dismissed the petitioner&#039;s arguments regarding the mechanical repetition of decisions by the Review Committee, finding that the RC provided independent findings. - Regarding the defense against wilful default due to the CIRP, the Court held that an OTS does not absolve wilful default, especially if part of the loan is written off. - The Court noted evidence from the borrower-Company&#039;s balance sheets suggesting diversion of funds and disposal of assets, supporting the bank&#039;s allegations of wilful default. - Directors were held responsible for wilful default, irrespective of ongoing CIRP proceedings or OTS agreements. - The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the declaration of wilful defaulter status against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:36:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:36:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds Wilful Defaulter Status Despite OTS and CIRP; Directors Held Liable for Fund Diversion.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75962</link>
      <description>Declaration of Wilful Defaulter of the petitioner - Liability of Directors - The High Court dismissed the petitioner&#039;s arguments regarding the mechanical repetition of decisions by the Review Committee, finding that the RC provided independent findings. - Regarding the defense against wilful default due to the CIRP, the Court held that an OTS does not absolve wilful default, especially if part of the loan is written off. - The Court noted evidence from the borrower-Company&#039;s balance sheets suggesting diversion of funds and disposal of assets, supporting the bank&#039;s allegations of wilful default. - Directors were held responsible for wilful default, irrespective of ongoing CIRP proceedings or OTS agreements. - The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the declaration of wilful defaulter status against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:36:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>