https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767052 NCLAT Principal Bench held that Section 65 of IBC, being a penal provision, requires strict interpretation and penalties can only be imposed on persons who fraudulently initiate insolvency resolution process under Sections 7, 9, or 10. The tribunal ruled that promoters cannot be penalized under Section 65 as they are not entitled to initiate CIRP proceedings. While the adjudicating authority found CIRP was initiated fraudulently by financial creditors, it was directed to proceed with imposing appropriate penalties only on the financial creditors who initiated the process, not on promoters or other parties. Appeal disposed of accordingly. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:42:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767052 NCLAT Principal Bench held that Section 65 of IBC, being a penal provision, requires strict interpretation and penalties can only be imposed on persons who fraudulently initiate insolvency resolution process under Sections 7, 9, or 10. The tribunal ruled that promoters cannot be penalized under Section 65 as they are not entitled to initiate CIRP proceedings. While the adjudicating authority found CIRP was initiated fraudulently by financial creditors, it was directed to proceed with imposing appropriate penalties only on the financial creditors who initiated the process, not on promoters or other parties. Appeal disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767052