Back
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
A. B. Gupta, J
Sudipa Nath v. Union of India
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims public interest regarding fraudulent activities under ibc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. distinction between s.66(1) ibc and provisions under companies act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on how nclt can address fraudulent business conduct. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. clarification on the powers and jurisdiction of nclt under ibc. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. section 66(1) maintains its constitutionality, enabling liabilities without declaring transactions void. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. court dismisses the writ petition based on above considerations. (Para 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 for being manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional, u
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
