https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425372 A third party cannot invoke section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to stop section 7 insolvency proceedings unless it proves that the petition was filed fraudulently or maliciously for a purpose other than insolvency resolution. On the facts recorded, the Tribunal found no proof of collusion, no shown breach of any binding injunction, no completed sale of assets, and no material establishing that the lenders had acted outside the framework agreement or RBI framework. Alleged prejudice to contractual or arbitral rights was held insufficient by itself. The intervention petition therefore failed because the burden to prove fraud was not discharged and the intervenor lacked locus to block the insolvency process. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2022 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425372 A third party cannot invoke section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to stop section 7 insolvency proceedings unless it proves that the petition was filed fraudulently or maliciously for a purpose other than insolvency resolution. On the facts recorded, the Tribunal found no proof of collusion, no shown breach of any binding injunction, no completed sale of assets, and no material establishing that the lenders had acted outside the framework agreement or RBI framework. Alleged prejudice to contractual or arbitral rights was held insufficient by itself. The intervention petition therefore failed because the burden to prove fraud was not discharged and the intervenor lacked locus to block the insolvency process. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 20 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425372