https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762064 NCLAT dismissed a shareholder's appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016, ruling the appellant lacked locus standi as an "aggrieved person." The tribunal held that shareholder oppression disputes fall under Companies Act, 2013, not IBC, and that IBC as special statute prevails per Section 238. While equity shareholders are represented through Board of Directors who can intervene post-CIRP admission, individual shareholders cannot pursue derivative actions. The court emphasized that debt and default were established without pre-existing dispute pleadings, making the NCLT order compliant with IBC provisions. Appeal dismissed for non-maintainability. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762064 NCLAT dismissed a shareholder's appeal under Section 61 of IBC, 2016, ruling the appellant lacked locus standi as an "aggrieved person." The tribunal held that shareholder oppression disputes fall under Companies Act, 2013, not IBC, and that IBC as special statute prevails per Section 238. While equity shareholders are represented through Board of Directors who can intervene post-CIRP admission, individual shareholders cannot pursue derivative actions. The court emphasized that debt and default were established without pre-existing dispute pleadings, making the NCLT order compliant with IBC provisions. Appeal dismissed for non-maintainability. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762064