<?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>2025 (3) TMI 839 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767453</link>
    <description>The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the HC order and summoning order in a dishonour of cheque case. The corporate debtor was under insolvency proceedings before NCLT with a moratorium order under Section 14 IBC. The appellant, a suspended director, received a demand notice under Section 138 NI Act after the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The SC held that since the appellant was not in charge of the corporate debtor&#039;s affairs and had no capacity to fulfill the demand due to IRP&#039;s control over bank accounts under Section 17 IBC, the cause of action arose after moratorium when appellant lacked authority to make payment. The HC should have quashed proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 839 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767453</link>
      <description>The SC allowed the appeal and set aside the HC order and summoning order in a dishonour of cheque case. The corporate debtor was under insolvency proceedings before NCLT with a moratorium order under Section 14 IBC. The appellant, a suspended director, received a demand notice under Section 138 NI Act after the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The SC held that since the appellant was not in charge of the corporate debtor&#039;s affairs and had no capacity to fulfill the demand due to IRP&#039;s control over bank accounts under Section 17 IBC, the cause of action arose after moratorium when appellant lacked authority to make payment. The HC should have quashed proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>