Topic

Section 60(5)

3 articlesLatest 1 week ago
Corporate Veil Lifted to Hold Directors Personally Liable for Unpaid BPA Consideration | Section 60(5) IBC : NCLAT
Case Law Analysis
|National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Corporate Veil Lifted to Hold Directors Personally Liable for Unpaid BPA Consideration | Section 60(5) IBC : NCLAT

The NCLAT upheld jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to direct buyer's directors to pay Rs. 3 crore in unpaid BPA consideration, piercing the corporate veil to impose personal liability on them as controlling minds. This empowers liquidators to pursue directors personally for unpaid acquisition dues, affirming corporate structure cannot shield controlling persons from contractual obligations in insolvency.

Section 60(5)(c) IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Residuary Jurisdiction for Consequential Reliefs in Going Concern Sale; Clean Slate Doctrine Extended to Liquidation : NCLAT
Case Law Analysis
|National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Section 60(5)(c) IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Residuary Jurisdiction for Consequential Reliefs in Going Concern Sale; Clean Slate Doctrine Extended to Liquidation : NCLAT

The NCLAT ruled that the Adjudicating Authority possesses residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC to issue consequential directions necessary for implementing a going concern sale during liquidation. The tribunal extended the 'clean slate' doctrine - typically applied in resolution plans - to liquidation proceedings, ensuring that a successful auction purchaser receives the corporate debtor's assets free from encumbrances. This decision clarifies the AA's powers to facilitate liquidation sales and protects buyers from legacy claims, impacting liquidators, successful bidders, and secured creditors.