https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81655 The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the amendments to Section 14 of the IBC introduced by Act 1 of 2020. The impugned order conflicted with the legislative scheme u/s 14(1) Explanation and Section 14(2-A). These provisions allow termination, suspension or interruption of supply of goods or services critical to preserving the Corporate Debtor's value if dues arising during the moratorium period are unpaid. The protection u/s 14(1) is subject to no default in payment of current dues. Section 14(2-A prohibits interruption of such supply only if the RP considers it critical for preserving value and managing operations as a going concern, except when moratorium dues are unpaid. The NCLAT set aside the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:05:38 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:05:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81655 The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the amendments to Section 14 of the IBC introduced by Act 1 of 2020. The impugned order conflicted with the legislative scheme u/s 14(1) Explanation and Section 14(2-A). These provisions allow termination, suspension or interruption of supply of goods or services critical to preserving the Corporate Debtor's value if dues arising during the moratorium period are unpaid. The protection u/s 14(1) is subject to no default in payment of current dues. Section 14(2-A prohibits interruption of such supply only if the RP considers it critical for preserving value and managing operations as a going concern, except when moratorium dues are unpaid. The NCLAT set aside the impugned order as legally unsustainable and allowed the appeal. Highlights IBC Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:05:38 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81655