962

Once it has been proved that Corporate Debtor was duly served with a notice of insolvency petition, and given opportunities to show up and file reply to the said petition, the ignorance of the Corporate Debtor cannot be termed as a fraud played upon by the Operational Creditor – Rajnishpal Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Nilkamal Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench

/ 5 minutes of reading

Hon’ble NCLT Chandigarh Bench held that the present IA is nothing, but a tactic played by the Applicant to terminate the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, on a sham ground that the order admitting the Corporate Debtor into CIRP was obtained by the Operational Creditor by playing fraud.

Once it has been proved that Corporate Debtor was duly served with a notice of insolvency petition, and given opportunities to show up and file reply to the said petition, the ignorance of the Corporate Debtor cannot be termed as a fraud played upon by the Operational Creditor – Rajnishpal Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Nilkamal Ltd. and Ors. – NCLT Chandigarh Bench Read Post »

Sharing of common infrastructure, for which the costs has been borne by Corporate Debtor, certainly results into undue benefit having been given to the related parties at the cost of the Corporate Debtor, and such benefit certainly has an element of fraudulent intent – CA Manish Sukhani v. Shri Amit Lodha & Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench

/ 5 minutes of reading

NCLT Mumbai Bench-I held that Section 66 of the Code stipulates that the business of the Corporate Debtor is caried out with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. Accordingly, there has to be an element of fraudulent intent to bring the transactions within four corners the Section 66 of the Code. Sharing of common infrastructure, for which the costs has been borne by the Corporate Debtor, certainly results into undue benefit having been given to the related parties at the cost of the Corporate Debtor, and such benefit certainly has an element of fraudulent intent. Accordingly, we find that the transactions fall under the ambit of section 66 of the Code, and an appropriate relief ought to be granted.

Sharing of common infrastructure, for which the costs has been borne by Corporate Debtor, certainly results into undue benefit having been given to the related parties at the cost of the Corporate Debtor, and such benefit certainly has an element of fraudulent intent – CA Manish Sukhani v. Shri Amit Lodha & Others – NCLT Mumbai Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top