https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284985 The High Court declined to entertain the writ challenge to the RBI direction and the insolvency proceedings, holding that disputed questions on default and the completeness of the section 7 application were for the NCLT to decide under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It also held that the RBI direction issued under section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act was not without jurisdiction or illegal, since the Supreme Court had acceded to RBI's request to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The Court further noted that a financial creditor was not barred from independently invoking section 7, and left the petitioner to raise its objections before the adjudicating authority. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:24:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284985 The High Court declined to entertain the writ challenge to the RBI direction and the insolvency proceedings, holding that disputed questions on default and the completeness of the section 7 application were for the NCLT to decide under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It also held that the RBI direction issued under section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act was not without jurisdiction or illegal, since the Supreme Court had acceded to RBI's request to initiate corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. The Court further noted that a financial creditor was not barred from independently invoking section 7, and left the petitioner to raise its objections before the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284985