https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313228 A shareholder of a corporate debtor can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 to challenge a jurisdictional illegality affecting the company, particularly where a tribunal is alleged to have acted contrary to a statutory moratorium. The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars continuation of recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor or its assets, and Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. On that basis, DRAT proceedings continued during the moratorium were held impermissible, and the resulting order was treated as without jurisdiction. The impugned DRAT order was set aside and the matter was restored for reconsideration in accordance with law after the moratorium ceased. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:56:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313228 A shareholder of a corporate debtor can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 to challenge a jurisdictional illegality affecting the company, particularly where a tribunal is alleged to have acted contrary to a statutory moratorium. The moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars continuation of recovery proceedings against the corporate debtor or its assets, and Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. On that basis, DRAT proceedings continued during the moratorium were held impermissible, and the resulting order was treated as without jurisdiction. The impugned DRAT order was set aside and the matter was restored for reconsideration in accordance with law after the moratorium ceased. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313228