https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457864 The NCLT Hyderabad partially allowed an application seeking recovery of Rs.3.87 crores allegedly siphoned off by respondents from a corporate debtor. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to classify most transactions as preferential or fraudulent due to lack of requisite information and unverified asset values. However, it treated the transfer of an Innova Crysta car post-CIRP initiation as fraudulent transaction intended to defraud creditors. Under Section 66(2)(b) of IBC 2016, the tribunal directed respondents to contribute Rs.13,74,585 to corporate debtor's assets for failing to exercise due diligence in minimizing creditor losses. en-us Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:20:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457864 The NCLT Hyderabad partially allowed an application seeking recovery of Rs.3.87 crores allegedly siphoned off by respondents from a corporate debtor. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to classify most transactions as preferential or fraudulent due to lack of requisite information and unverified asset values. However, it treated the transfer of an Innova Crysta car post-CIRP initiation as fraudulent transaction intended to defraud creditors. Under Section 66(2)(b) of IBC 2016, the tribunal directed respondents to contribute Rs.13,74,585 to corporate debtor's assets for failing to exercise due diligence in minimizing creditor losses. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 02 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457864