<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>NCLAT Rules Subsidiary Company Assets Cannot Be Counted as Corporate Debtor&#039;s Property During Insolvency Under IBC Section 14.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85227</link>
    <description>NCLAT determined that assets of a subsidiary company cannot be treated as assets of the corporate debtor (holding company) during insolvency proceedings. The tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s directive for fresh valuation of The Learning Internet Inc. shares, ruling it exceeded jurisdictional scope. The corporate guarantor&#039;s claim of undervaluation should have been addressed before Singapore&#039;s High Court under relevant insolvency laws, not NCLT. Historic valuation reports from 2008 and 2014-2021 were deemed irrelevant to current proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that moratorium under IBC applies exclusively to corporate debtor&#039;s assets, not subsidiary holdings. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=792452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>NCLAT Rules Subsidiary Company Assets Cannot Be Counted as Corporate Debtor&#039;s Property During Insolvency Under IBC Section 14.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85227</link>
      <description>NCLAT determined that assets of a subsidiary company cannot be treated as assets of the corporate debtor (holding company) during insolvency proceedings. The tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s directive for fresh valuation of The Learning Internet Inc. shares, ruling it exceeded jurisdictional scope. The corporate guarantor&#039;s claim of undervaluation should have been addressed before Singapore&#039;s High Court under relevant insolvency laws, not NCLT. Historic valuation reports from 2008 and 2014-2021 were deemed irrelevant to current proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that moratorium under IBC applies exclusively to corporate debtor&#039;s assets, not subsidiary holdings. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>