https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752945 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of a Section 9 application filed against a corporate debtor whose name was struck off by RoC. The court clarified that winding up is a debt recovery mechanism involving company dissolution and asset liquidation, while CIRP under the Code aims at corporate revival, not debt recovery. The court distinguished between these processes, noting CIRP protects corporate debtors and focuses on revival rather than liquidation. The tribunal held that striking off a company's name doesn't automatically restore it upon filing insolvency applications, and Section 252(3) provides separate appeal rights for challenging RoC orders, requiring proper pleadings and evidence. en-us Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 May 2024 06:56:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752945 The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging rejection of a Section 9 application filed against a corporate debtor whose name was struck off by RoC. The court clarified that winding up is a debt recovery mechanism involving company dissolution and asset liquidation, while CIRP under the Code aims at corporate revival, not debt recovery. The court distinguished between these processes, noting CIRP protects corporate debtors and focuses on revival rather than liquidation. The tribunal held that striking off a company's name doesn't automatically restore it upon filing insolvency applications, and Section 252(3) provides separate appeal rights for challenging RoC orders, requiring proper pleadings and evidence. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 01 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752945