https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416698 Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked to restrain implementation of a public-law administrative order that has no real nexus with the insolvency resolution process. The challenge was aimed at a District Magistrate's order issued under the disaster-management regime, not at any act arising from the insolvency proceedings themselves, so the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant interim protection. The existence of an insolvency proceeding did not, by itself, expand residuary jurisdiction to cover disputes that belonged in the appropriate public-law forum. The restraint on alternative internet service providers was therefore properly removed. en-us Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jan 2022 07:11:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416698 Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be invoked to restrain implementation of a public-law administrative order that has no real nexus with the insolvency resolution process. The challenge was aimed at a District Magistrate's order issued under the disaster-management regime, not at any act arising from the insolvency proceedings themselves, so the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant interim protection. The existence of an insolvency proceeding did not, by itself, expand residuary jurisdiction to cover disputes that belonged in the appropriate public-law forum. The restraint on alternative internet service providers was therefore properly removed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416698