Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 order appointing the Resolution Professional in proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be sustained without consideration of the petitioners' objections on limitation and maintainability, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration of those objections.
Analysis: The petitions challenged the order appointing a Resolution Professional in personal insolvency proceedings against the petitioners as personal guarantors. The principal objection raised was that the Section 95 application was barred by limitation and was otherwise not maintainable, and that these foundational objections had not been dealt with in the impugned order. The Court noted the competing submissions on limitation, the effect of acknowledgments and revival letters, and the question of availability of an alternate remedy. Without entering into the merits of those contentions, the Court found it appropriate that the Adjudicating Authority should first examine the objections regarding limitation and maintainability.
Conclusion: The impugned order was not interfered with on merits, but the matter was remanded to the National Company Law Tribunal to consider the objections relating to limitation and maintainability under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.