https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778789 Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as protecting a successful resolution applicant from past liabilities of the erstwhile management after approval of the resolution plan and change in control. The petitioner, as a 50% shareholder under the plan, could not be proceeded against merely as the successor to prior management for antecedent liabilities. However, the impugned process was only a notice to appear, not a summoning order as an accused, so the notice was not quashed. The petitioner was directed to place the resolution plan and immunity claim before the trial court, which would decide whether arraying the petitioner as an accused was warranted. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778789 Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as protecting a successful resolution applicant from past liabilities of the erstwhile management after approval of the resolution plan and change in control. The petitioner, as a 50% shareholder under the plan, could not be proceeded against merely as the successor to prior management for antecedent liabilities. However, the impugned process was only a notice to appear, not a summoning order as an accused, so the notice was not quashed. The petitioner was directed to place the resolution plan and immunity claim before the trial court, which would decide whether arraying the petitioner as an accused was warranted. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778789