<?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 (9) TMI 632 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427687</link>
    <description>In personal guarantor insolvency proceedings under the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority cannot recall or review its own order except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The authority had only a limited corrective power and could not sit in appeal over its order. Because the matter had not reached final adjudication on the Resolution Professional&#039;s report and the applicant had already been given an opportunity to file objections before the Resolution Professional, no interference was warranted. The dismissal of the recall application was upheld, and the applicant was directed to pursue objections before the Resolution Professional at the appropriate stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 07:49:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 632 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427687</link>
      <description>In personal guarantor insolvency proceedings under the IBC, the Adjudicating Authority cannot recall or review its own order except to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes. The authority had only a limited corrective power and could not sit in appeal over its order. Because the matter had not reached final adjudication on the Resolution Professional&#039;s report and the applicant had already been given an opportunity to file objections before the Resolution Professional, no interference was warranted. The dismissal of the recall application was upheld, and the applicant was directed to pursue objections before the Resolution Professional at the appropriate stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>