TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Recall Order; Appellant's Challenge Barred by 30-Day Limit, Requires Separate Challenges for Orders.</h1> <h3>Zulekha Amir Dodhia Versus Bank of Baroda & Anr.</h3> Zulekha Amir Dodhia Versus Bank of Baroda & Anr. - TMI Issues:Challenge to order recalling a previous decision, Entitlement to challenge multiple orders separately, Rejection of OTS offer and Resolution Plan approval in CIRP.Challenge to order recalling a previous decision:The Appellant challenged the order recalling a previous decision, arguing entitlement to challenge it in the present appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant did not file an appeal against the order of recall within the 30-day limitation period under Section 61 of the IBC. The Tribunal held that the Appellant cannot challenge the order recalling the previous decision in the current appeal against a subsequent order.Entitlement to challenge multiple orders separately:The Appellant contended that the order recalling the previous decision had merged with the subsequent order being challenged. The Tribunal clarified that both orders were separate and needed to be challenged individually under the IBC provisions. It was emphasized that the Appellant's argument of challenging both orders in a single appeal was not acceptable under Section 61 of the IBC.Rejection of OTS offer and Resolution Plan approval in CIRP:The Appellant's proposal for a One Time Settlement (OTS) offer was not accepted, as confirmed in a letter from the Bank. The Tribunal acknowledged the approval of the Resolution Plan in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Principal Borrower. The Tribunal highlighted the need for the Adjudicating Authority to consider all aspects, including any amount received in the CIRP of the Principal Borrower, while finalizing the Resolution Plan of the Personal Guarantor. The Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Section 95 application and disposed of the appeal, subject to the observations made.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised by the Appellant regarding the challenge to previous orders, entitlement to challenge separate orders, and the rejection of the OTS offer in light of the Resolution Plan approval in the CIRP.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
