Satyam fraud “encouraged India’s government to tighten the CG requirements to prevent similar frauds from repeating in the future. Thus, for “lessons-learned” and “strategies-to-follow” to minimize the occurrences of such frauds in the future, significant financial reporting frauds need to be studied.
False Imprisonment is a situation of restricting the movement and freedom of another person without any legal justification or the permission of the restricted person.
The case is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner under an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate.
Corporate fraud is an illegal, deceptive activity performed by a corporation or a person who works for the company. They result in the loss of a company’s market capitalization and brand value. They are alarmingly prevalent in several countries and sectors of the economy.
Corporate Crime is the offence committed by the Corporation, as a separate legal body, varies from that of a normal individual, and the Corporation is responsible and guilty for the act.
The case with its judgment created great significance in the field of winding-up petition field of law. It created a path for both creditors and debtors to move with their petitions and application hand in hand within the same forum. The judgment also created and allowed a wider interpretation the code.
The judgment provides that the RBI dependence on Section 35AA was for only a specific cause and it will affect the legal compliance if used in any matter rather than a specific clause and without the authorisation provided by the Central Government. RBI should create a new and specific regulatory framework which provide for the implementation intended through the power already conferred in the code.
The resolution plans should be given to the board of directors as they can provide better information to the committee of creditors regarding their debts. In spite of, Section 60(5) of the Code, board of directors have a right to challenge the terms of a proposed resolution plan before the Tribunal under section 61 of the code which will increase the court cases and burden on courts, providing of resolution plans before passing them to adjudicating authority will save the time.
The reason for differentiating between financial debts, which are secured, and operational debts, which are unsecured, is in the relative importance of the two types of debts when it comes to the object sought to be achieved by the Insolvency Code. Repayment of financial debts infuses capital into the economy inasmuch as banks and financial institutions are able, with the money that has been paid back, to further lend such money to other entrepreneurs for their businesses.
The approval of the adjudicating authority is not a mere requirement, even the adjudicating authority is not permitted to change the terms of the plan. The ultimate authority to approve or reject a plan rely with the adjudicating authority and it must comply with the provisions of the code that whether the resolution plan is according to Section 30(2) of the IBC, 2016.
