https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430533 The Tribunal upheld the validity of the application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, confirming compliance with statutory requirements. It also ruled that the appointment of the Resolution Professional (RP) was proper, dismissing claims of bias and procedural defects. Despite acknowledging a delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders solely based on timing. Both appeals were ultimately dismissed, emphasizing adherence to the statutory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. en-us Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430533 The Tribunal upheld the validity of the application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, confirming compliance with statutory requirements. It also ruled that the appointment of the Resolution Professional (RP) was proper, dismissing claims of bias and procedural defects. Despite acknowledging a delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders solely based on timing. Both appeals were ultimately dismissed, emphasizing adherence to the statutory provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 21 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430533