Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Appeal Succeeds: No Liability for Suspended Directors as Loss-Making Share Deals Not Fraudulent under IBC s.66(2)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLT order which had directed the suspended directors of the CD (appellants) to contribute to the liquidation estate under s.66 of the IBC. NCLAT held that the impugned share purchase transactions, though loss-making, were commercial decisions within the appellants' financial intermediation business and could not, on the available material, be characterised as fraudulent or wrongful trading. The Appellate Tribunal found that the transactional audit report was not conclusive evidence and that the NCLT failed to examine whether the statutory conditions under s.66(2) were cumulatively satisfied, particularly knowledge of inevitable CIRP and lack of due diligence in minimising creditor losses. Consequently, the findings of fraudulent transactions and corresponding liability of the appellants were vacated.....