https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304129 A later Supreme Court ruling in a different case did not justify reopening final orders admitting the corporate insolvency process and directing liquidation. The Tribunal held that the earlier admission order had been affirmed on appeal and the further challenge had been dismissed, so the proceedings had attained finality. It found that the doctrine of merger and res judicata barred a fresh challenge, and that Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules could not be used as a substitute for review. The plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction was rejected because the prior orders had already passed through the appellate chain and remained final, so the recall application was not maintainable. en-us Fri, 06 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:02:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304129 A later Supreme Court ruling in a different case did not justify reopening final orders admitting the corporate insolvency process and directing liquidation. The Tribunal held that the earlier admission order had been affirmed on appeal and the further challenge had been dismissed, so the proceedings had attained finality. It found that the doctrine of merger and res judicata barred a fresh challenge, and that Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules could not be used as a substitute for review. The plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction was rejected because the prior orders had already passed through the appellate chain and remained final, so the recall application was not maintainable. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 06 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304129