<?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 (8) TMI 1756 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465670</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether freezing a joint venture&#039;s bank accounts and directing a forensic audit through orders passed without impleading the affected party or granting a hearing violated natural justice. The AT held that the impugned orders were made in the appellant&#039;s absence and without an opportunity to be heard, attracting breach of audi alteram partem; however, since the NCLT&#039;s order itself permitted parties to seek leave for defreezing and the appellant had not invoked that liberty, the AT disposed of the appeals by permitting the appellant to file an application before the NCLT within two weeks for leave/defreezing and raising all contentions, with a restraint on coercive action until such application is decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 20:18:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1756 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465670</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether freezing a joint venture&#039;s bank accounts and directing a forensic audit through orders passed without impleading the affected party or granting a hearing violated natural justice. The AT held that the impugned orders were made in the appellant&#039;s absence and without an opportunity to be heard, attracting breach of audi alteram partem; however, since the NCLT&#039;s order itself permitted parties to seek leave for defreezing and the appellant had not invoked that liberty, the AT disposed of the appeals by permitting the appellant to file an application before the NCLT within two weeks for leave/defreezing and raising all contentions, with a restraint on coercive action until such application is decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>