<?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 (5) TMI 583 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770311</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by former CFO-cum-WTD against company regarding entitlement to director&#039;s emoluments. Appellant was initially appointed as CFO through employment contract, later designated as WTD while continuing as CFO. Upon termination as CFO, all terminal benefits were paid. Tribunal held that appellant&#039;s appointment as WTD was contingent upon CFO position, no separate remuneration was approved by board resolution as required under Articles of Association, and no evidence existed of exclusive payment as WTD. The dispute was deemed contractual in nature arising from employment contract, making it non-maintainable under Insolvency Code due to pre-existing dispute provisions under Section 9(5)(ii)(d).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 09:12:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 583 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770311</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by former CFO-cum-WTD against company regarding entitlement to director&#039;s emoluments. Appellant was initially appointed as CFO through employment contract, later designated as WTD while continuing as CFO. Upon termination as CFO, all terminal benefits were paid. Tribunal held that appellant&#039;s appointment as WTD was contingent upon CFO position, no separate remuneration was approved by board resolution as required under Articles of Association, and no evidence existed of exclusive payment as WTD. The dispute was deemed contractual in nature arising from employment contract, making it non-maintainable under Insolvency Code due to pre-existing dispute provisions under Section 9(5)(ii)(d).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>