TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the suspended director could invoke the Tribunal's residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) to seek review or recall of the earlier admission order. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could interfere with the Committee of Creditors' decision to issue the expression of interest and appoint the support service provider.
Issue (i): Whether the suspended director could invoke the Tribunal's residuary jurisdiction under Section 60(5) to seek review or recall of the earlier admission order.
Analysis: The application was filed long after the admission order had attained finality and after expiry of the appeal period. The relief sought was, in substance, a rehearing of the admission order under the guise of an interlocutory application. Section 60(5) confers wide jurisdiction in insolvency matters, but it does not authorise review or recall of a concluded admission order on the grounds raised. The Tribunal therefore treated the application as an impermissible attempt to reopen settled proceedings.
Conclusion: The request to reopen or recall the admission order was not maintainable and was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could interfere with the Committee of Creditors' decision to issue the expression of interest and appoint the support service provider.
Analysis: The record showed that the Committee of Creditors had taken the relevant decision by unanimous vote and had consciously approved the appointment in the interest of the resolution process. The Tribunal held that the decision fell within the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and that it could not sit in appeal over that decision. The challenge was also viewed as belated, since a substantial part of the resolution process had already progressed.
Conclusion: No interference was called for with the Committee of Creditors' decision regarding the expression of interest or the support service provider.
Final Conclusion: The application failed in its entirety as an impermissible attempt to reopen a final admission order and to upset a commercial decision taken in the resolution process; it was therefore dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 60(5) cannot be used to review or recall a final admission order, and decisions falling within the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors are not amenable to interference absent legal infirmity.
TaxTMI 
