<?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>Preferential transaction analysis under insolvency law upheld only for the related-party creditor transfer; CoC approval was not required.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99729</link>
    <description>The NCLAT held that the insolvency framework empowers a resolution professional to appoint professionals when needed for the CIRP, and no CoC approval is required for appointing a transaction auditor or for filing an avoidance application; those objections were rejected. It also held that preferential transaction proceedings are summary in nature and do not require joinder of transferee entities where the corporate debtor&#039;s records suffice; the non-joinder plea therefore failed. On Section 43, the Tribunal found a preferential transfer only where the recipient was a creditor and the payment was within the related-party look-back period without material showing ordinary-course supply. The transfer to K. Sera Sera Digital Cinema Ltd. was upheld as preferential, while the transfer to K. Sera Sera Miniplex Ltd. was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 16:44:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 16:44:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Preferential transaction analysis under insolvency law upheld only for the related-party creditor transfer; CoC approval was not required.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99729</link>
      <description>The NCLAT held that the insolvency framework empowers a resolution professional to appoint professionals when needed for the CIRP, and no CoC approval is required for appointing a transaction auditor or for filing an avoidance application; those objections were rejected. It also held that preferential transaction proceedings are summary in nature and do not require joinder of transferee entities where the corporate debtor&#039;s records suffice; the non-joinder plea therefore failed. On Section 43, the Tribunal found a preferential transfer only where the recipient was a creditor and the payment was within the related-party look-back period without material showing ordinary-course supply. The transfer to K. Sera Sera Digital Cinema Ltd. was upheld as preferential, while the transfer to K. Sera Sera Miniplex Ltd. was set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 16:44:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>