https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759556 The NCLT Chennai dismissed an application under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging fraudulent transactions by a corporate debtor. The tribunal held that the Resolution Professional failed to establish fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt regarding four disputed transactions: conversion of share application money to unsecured loan, investments in related parties, cash withdrawals for salaries, and unaccounted rental income. The court emphasized that section 66 requires proof of malicious intent to defraud creditors, not mere suspicion. The tribunal found that transactions were conducted at arm's length under Companies Act provisions, salary payments ceased after 2016, and no material evidence supported fraudulent purpose. The application was dismissed as being based on mere suspicion without adequate proof. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759556 The NCLT Chennai dismissed an application under section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging fraudulent transactions by a corporate debtor. The tribunal held that the Resolution Professional failed to establish fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt regarding four disputed transactions: conversion of share application money to unsecured loan, investments in related parties, cash withdrawals for salaries, and unaccounted rental income. The court emphasized that section 66 requires proof of malicious intent to defraud creditors, not mere suspicion. The tribunal found that transactions were conducted at arm's length under Companies Act provisions, salary payments ceased after 2016, and no material evidence supported fraudulent purpose. The application was dismissed as being based on mere suspicion without adequate proof. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759556