https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764425 After approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and a change in management, punitive blacklisting based on defaults of the erstwhile management was inconsistent with the clean slate objective of insolvency resolution. The Court treated Sections 31 and 32A as supporting revival of the corporate debtor as a going concern, so past contractual breaches already attributable to the former management should not continue to burden the revived company. Where the performance bank guarantee had already been forfeited for the breach, a further three-year debarment was held disproportionate and unnecessary. The blacklisting and debarment were therefore quashed. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 10:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764425 After approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and a change in management, punitive blacklisting based on defaults of the erstwhile management was inconsistent with the clean slate objective of insolvency resolution. The Court treated Sections 31 and 32A as supporting revival of the corporate debtor as a going concern, so past contractual breaches already attributable to the former management should not continue to burden the revived company. Where the performance bank guarantee had already been forfeited for the breach, a further three-year debarment was held disproportionate and unnecessary. The blacklisting and debarment were therefore quashed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764425