https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765202 NCLAT held that subsidiary company assets are legally distinct from holding company assets in insolvency proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority correctly determined that moratorium under IBC applies only to Corporate Debtor's assets, not subsidiary assets. However, NCLAT set aside the direction for fresh valuation of subsidiary shares, ruling it exceeded jurisdictional scope. Corporate guarantor should have approached Singapore HC under relevant insolvency law rather than domestic tribunal. Outdated valuation reports from 2008-2021 were improperly relied upon. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765202 NCLAT held that subsidiary company assets are legally distinct from holding company assets in insolvency proceedings. The Adjudicating Authority correctly determined that moratorium under IBC applies only to Corporate Debtor's assets, not subsidiary assets. However, NCLAT set aside the direction for fresh valuation of subsidiary shares, ruling it exceeded jurisdictional scope. Corporate guarantor should have approached Singapore HC under relevant insolvency law rather than domestic tribunal. Outdated valuation reports from 2008-2021 were improperly relied upon. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 23 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765202