https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352123 The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by the 2nd respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was justified. It was determined that the parallel proceedings before DRT and NCLT did not amount to forum shopping. The court also found that the actions of the 2nd respondent did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Additionally, it was held that NCLT had jurisdiction to proceed with the application despite pending adjudication before DRT, and the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 override other laws. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352123 The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by the 2nd respondent under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was justified. It was determined that the parallel proceedings before DRT and NCLT did not amount to forum shopping. The court also found that the actions of the 2nd respondent did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Additionally, it was held that NCLT had jurisdiction to proceed with the application despite pending adjudication before DRT, and the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 override other laws. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352123