https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782473 NCLAT upheld the NCLT's finding that the erstwhile directors of the corporate debtor engaged in fraudulent trading under section 66 of the IBC. The tribunal held that the MOU for sale of assets, under which 98.997% of consideration was paid with deliberate structuring of dates and payment terms, was designed to enable forfeiture and siphoning of funds from the corporate debtor, rendering the MOU fraudulent and void ab initio. NCLAT clarified that there is no statutory look-back period for fraudulent transactions and that once fraud is established, timing is irrelevant. Finding no merit in the directors' objections, NCLAT affirmed the direction requiring them to contribute Rs. 36.53 crore to the assets of the corporate debtor and dismissed the appeal. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:56:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782473 NCLAT upheld the NCLT's finding that the erstwhile directors of the corporate debtor engaged in fraudulent trading under section 66 of the IBC. The tribunal held that the MOU for sale of assets, under which 98.997% of consideration was paid with deliberate structuring of dates and payment terms, was designed to enable forfeiture and siphoning of funds from the corporate debtor, rendering the MOU fraudulent and void ab initio. NCLAT clarified that there is no statutory look-back period for fraudulent transactions and that once fraud is established, timing is irrelevant. Finding no merit in the directors' objections, NCLAT affirmed the direction requiring them to contribute Rs. 36.53 crore to the assets of the corporate debtor and dismissed the appeal. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782473