Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Interim Resolution Professional could continue the corporate insolvency resolution process and issue fresh public announcement after the earlier stay was vacated.
Analysis: The stay granted by the High Court had been vacated, with the result that the earlier order initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process revived. Since the earlier public announcement had lapsed during the subsistence of the stay, fresh announcement was to invite claims and proceed with verification in accordance with the governing regulations. The process was also required to follow the prescribed model timeline.
Conclusion: The Interim Resolution Professional was directed to continue the corporate insolvency resolution process, make fresh public announcements under Regulation 6(1), verify claims, and comply with Regulation 40A.
Final Conclusion: The application was allowed in substance, and the insolvency resolution process was permitted to proceed afresh from the stage affected by the stay.
Ratio Decidendi: When a stay of insolvency proceedings is vacated, the original order revives and the resolution professional may be directed to reissue public announcement and proceed in accordance with the CIRP regulations.