https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305357 The court admitted the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and later confirmed the Resolution Professional (RP). Despite efforts, no resolution plan was approved due to asset attachment, leading to the CIRP period expiring. RP's appeals for asset release and exclusion of CIRP period were dismissed. With no approved plan, liquidation was ordered under Section 33 of the Code, appointing RP as Liquidator to sell the Corporate Debtor. An additional judgment dismissed RP's request to exclude CIRP period due to pending litigation. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Dec 2022 06:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305357 The court admitted the application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), and later confirmed the Resolution Professional (RP). Despite efforts, no resolution plan was approved due to asset attachment, leading to the CIRP period expiring. RP's appeals for asset release and exclusion of CIRP period were dismissed. With no approved plan, liquidation was ordered under Section 33 of the Code, appointing RP as Liquidator to sell the Corporate Debtor. An additional judgment dismissed RP's request to exclude CIRP period due to pending litigation. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305357