https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412090 The NCLT held that a liquidator's appointment could be interfered with under Section 34(4)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where it was not in accordance with law. Treating the challenge as confined to the legality of the appointment, the Tribunal concluded that the appointment was non est and ab initio void, and directed replacement of the liquidator. The pendency of an appeal against the liquidation order was noted, but it was not treated as a bar to this limited relief. en-us Sat, 07 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:05:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412090 The NCLT held that a liquidator's appointment could be interfered with under Section 34(4)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where it was not in accordance with law. Treating the challenge as confined to the legality of the appointment, the Tribunal concluded that the appointment was non est and ab initio void, and directed replacement of the liquidator. The pendency of an appeal against the liquidation order was noted, but it was not treated as a bar to this limited relief. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Sat, 07 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412090