https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372541 The tribunal held that the intervention application was not valid under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as the insolvency resolution process had not yet commenced. It emphasized that third parties, including shareholders or guarantors, do not have the right to intervene in Section 7 proceedings. Additionally, the application was deemed untimely due to the expiration of the proposed debt settlement deadline. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the intervention application without awarding costs. en-us Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:23:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372541 The tribunal held that the intervention application was not valid under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as the insolvency resolution process had not yet commenced. It emphasized that third parties, including shareholders or guarantors, do not have the right to intervene in Section 7 proceedings. Additionally, the application was deemed untimely due to the expiration of the proposed debt settlement deadline. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the intervention application without awarding costs. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372541