https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794364 The article explains that a claimant was treated as a related party under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because it exercised downstream control and could influence board composition. It also notes that the HSBC-related claim was rejected because the payment under the facility was made by another entity and no assignable debt from a formal guarantee was shown. On security, rights obtained through subrogation or assignment did not confer secured creditor status over immovable property in India without compliance with foreign exchange restrictions and lawful transfer of the underlying security. The claim was confined to the amount actually paid under the FEMA notification, and post-facto RBI approval could not enlarge it. The resolution plan and CoC distribution decision were left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794364 The article explains that a claimant was treated as a related party under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because it exercised downstream control and could influence board composition. It also notes that the HSBC-related claim was rejected because the payment under the facility was made by another entity and no assignable debt from a formal guarantee was shown. On security, rights obtained through subrogation or assignment did not confer secured creditor status over immovable property in India without compliance with foreign exchange restrictions and lawful transfer of the underlying security. The claim was confined to the amount actually paid under the FEMA notification, and post-facto RBI approval could not enlarge it. The resolution plan and CoC distribution decision were left undisturbed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794364