<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (3) TMI 579 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419541</link>
    <description>An ex-parte insolvency admission order may be recalled under Rule 49(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 where the respondent shows that notice was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance. The rule confers recall power in such cases and does not amount to a barred review. The constitution of the Committee of Creditors does not prevent recall on this ground where the recall application was moved before that stage and the challenge concerns non-service of notice, not withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The refusal to recall was therefore set aside and the matter restored for fresh hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 579 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419541</link>
      <description>An ex-parte insolvency admission order may be recalled under Rule 49(2) of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 where the respondent shows that notice was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance. The rule confers recall power in such cases and does not amount to a barred review. The constitution of the Committee of Creditors does not prevent recall on this ground where the recall application was moved before that stage and the challenge concerns non-service of notice, not withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The refusal to recall was therefore set aside and the matter restored for fresh hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419541</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>