https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398145 A writ petition challenging an insolvency order was found to suffer from a maintainability defect because it was filed by the company through an erstwhile director after appointment of the insolvency professional, and the impugned order was appealable. The Court also held that repeated requests for adjournment on assurances of settlement, without any settlement materialising or any deposit being made despite repeated opportunities, showed lack of bona fides. On that basis, discretionary relief under Article 226 was declined, and the challenge to the insolvency order was not entertained. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Mar 2021 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398145 A writ petition challenging an insolvency order was found to suffer from a maintainability defect because it was filed by the company through an erstwhile director after appointment of the insolvency professional, and the impugned order was appealable. The Court also held that repeated requests for adjournment on assurances of settlement, without any settlement materialising or any deposit being made despite repeated opportunities, showed lack of bona fides. On that basis, discretionary relief under Article 226 was declined, and the challenge to the insolvency order was not entertained. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398145