https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782576 NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 66(2) IBC directing suspended directors to jointly and severally refund Rs. 91,00,000 to the corporate debtor, and dismissed their appeal as not maintainable. The Tribunal held that encashment of cheques during moratorium under Section 14, funded by post-CIRP credits with no underlying liability, was impermissible and constituted wrongful trading causing loss to creditors. It found Section 66(1) and 66(2) to be independent provisions duly attracted on the facts. NCLAT further held that the interim moratorium under Sections 95-96 IBC does not bar or stay proceedings or orders under Section 66 against suspended directors. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782576 NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order under Section 66(2) IBC directing suspended directors to jointly and severally refund Rs. 91,00,000 to the corporate debtor, and dismissed their appeal as not maintainable. The Tribunal held that encashment of cheques during moratorium under Section 14, funded by post-CIRP credits with no underlying liability, was impermissible and constituted wrongful trading causing loss to creditors. It found Section 66(1) and 66(2) to be independent provisions duly attracted on the facts. NCLAT further held that the interim moratorium under Sections 95-96 IBC does not bar or stay proceedings or orders under Section 66 against suspended directors. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782576