https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427693 A restraint limited to coercive steps did not prevent the lender from pursuing insolvency proceedings, because the term "recovery" was read broadly to include lawful remedies for realising dues and proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were treated as a statutory insolvency process, not coercive action. The suit for injunction was also viewed as hit by the statutory bar against restraining proceedings before a competent forum, so interim relief could not be granted where a permanent injunction would be impermissible. The bank's clarification was therefore accepted, the alleged breach of the earlier orders was rejected, and the contempt case had no merit. en-us Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Sep 2022 07:50:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427693 A restraint limited to coercive steps did not prevent the lender from pursuing insolvency proceedings, because the term "recovery" was read broadly to include lawful remedies for realising dues and proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were treated as a statutory insolvency process, not coercive action. The suit for injunction was also viewed as hit by the statutory bar against restraining proceedings before a competent forum, so interim relief could not be granted where a permanent injunction would be impermissible. The bank's clarification was therefore accepted, the alleged breach of the earlier orders was rejected, and the contempt case had no merit. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427693