https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417254 A dispute over windmill assets already pending before the Calcutta High Court was treated as sub judice, with the rights under the letter of intent, sale agreement, alleged withdrawal and refund claim left for that court. In liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority was found to have acted within jurisdiction by keeping the assets outside the liquidation estate, consistent with an earlier order and Section 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was also permitted to allow the liquidator to seek impleadment in the civil suit without deciding the suit itself. The corrigendum deleting a portion of the order was upheld as a correction of accidental slip or omission under Rule 154, not an impermissible review. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:52:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417254 A dispute over windmill assets already pending before the Calcutta High Court was treated as sub judice, with the rights under the letter of intent, sale agreement, alleged withdrawal and refund claim left for that court. In liquidation, the Adjudicating Authority was found to have acted within jurisdiction by keeping the assets outside the liquidation estate, consistent with an earlier order and Section 36(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It was also permitted to allow the liquidator to seek impleadment in the civil suit without deciding the suit itself. The corrigendum deleting a portion of the order was upheld as a correction of accidental slip or omission under Rule 154, not an impermissible review. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417254