https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417256 A challenge to liquidation based on alleged improper constitution of the Adjudicating Authority failed because a single Judicial Member bench was permissible for the notified class of matters, the objection was not raised at the relevant stage, and the order was shown to have been passed by a duly constituted bench. The rejection of belated resolution efforts also stood because the CIRP had expired without approval of any viable plan, and the statutory scheme required liquidation under the Code once the resolution process failed. The Tribunal noted that a late proposal could not displace the time-bound insolvency framework, while liquidation should, so far as lawful, preserve the corporate debtor or its business as a going concern. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:52:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417256 A challenge to liquidation based on alleged improper constitution of the Adjudicating Authority failed because a single Judicial Member bench was permissible for the notified class of matters, the objection was not raised at the relevant stage, and the order was shown to have been passed by a duly constituted bench. The rejection of belated resolution efforts also stood because the CIRP had expired without approval of any viable plan, and the statutory scheme required liquidation under the Code once the resolution process failed. The Tribunal noted that a late proposal could not displace the time-bound insolvency framework, while liquidation should, so far as lawful, preserve the corporate debtor or its business as a going concern. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 18 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417256