https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782782 NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT's order holding the appellants liable for fraudulent transactions under Section 66 IBC. The Tribunal found that sale proceeds of a car, cash withdrawals, and diversion of funds through newly opened bank accounts were unsupported by vouchers or any proof of use for the corporate debtor's business. Allegations of denial of opportunity and lack of fair hearing were rejected, as the appellants neither sought time nor access to documents before NCLT and offered no explanation for removal of files or attempted break-in. Additional documents produced for the first time in appeal were refused under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 09:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782782 NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT's order holding the appellants liable for fraudulent transactions under Section 66 IBC. The Tribunal found that sale proceeds of a car, cash withdrawals, and diversion of funds through newly opened bank accounts were unsupported by vouchers or any proof of use for the corporate debtor's business. Allegations of denial of opportunity and lack of fair hearing were rejected, as the appellants neither sought time nor access to documents before NCLT and offered no explanation for removal of files or attempted break-in. Additional documents produced for the first time in appeal were refused under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782782