Back
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ag. C. J., Arindam Lodh, J.
Sudipa Nath v. Union of India
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to declare section 66(1) of the ibc unconstitutional due to alleged fraud against creditors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. distinction between ibc provisions and previous companies act applications asserted. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. relevant case law discussed concerning fraudulent transactions under relevant provisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. ibc introduces mechanisms for creditors against preferential transactions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court finds no merit in petitioner's claims against s.66(1), dismissing the writ. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
1. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and a resident of state of Tripura. The petitioner is before this court claiming public interest and no direct or indirect personal motive / interest and prays as follows:
(a) This is an application under Art.226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus and / or in the nature thereof to issue appropriate orders or direction, directing the respondent to forthwith take steps to declare S.66(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as ultra vires on the vice of Art.14 of the Constitution of India for being manifestly arbitrary and unconsti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
