https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338138 Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as overriding inconsistent State law, so a notification under section 4 of the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 could not bar admission of a section 7 insolvency application. The note also states that where default was shown, the default record had been filed with the information utility, and the proposed interim resolution professional faced no disciplinary bar, the section 7 application was complete and fit for admission. Moratorium directions followed and the corporate insolvency resolution process commenced. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338138 Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was treated as overriding inconsistent State law, so a notification under section 4 of the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 could not bar admission of a section 7 insolvency application. The note also states that where default was shown, the default record had been filed with the information utility, and the proposed interim resolution professional faced no disciplinary bar, the section 7 application was complete and fit for admission. Moratorium directions followed and the corporate insolvency resolution process commenced. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338138