https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305477 Where the adjudicating tribunal acts within its jurisdiction after hearing affected parties, a perceived illegality in including mortgaged leasehold land in the liquidation estate does not by itself justify writ interference. The Kerala High Court noted that the Tribunal had reconsidered the issue on remand and had construed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 while dealing with the liquidator's request, so the order could not be treated as jurisdictionally infirm. Any challenge to the correctness of that order was held to lie before the statutory appellate forum under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and no ground for judicial review under Article 226 was made out. en-us Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Dec 2022 14:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305477 Where the adjudicating tribunal acts within its jurisdiction after hearing affected parties, a perceived illegality in including mortgaged leasehold land in the liquidation estate does not by itself justify writ interference. The Kerala High Court noted that the Tribunal had reconsidered the issue on remand and had construed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 while dealing with the liquidator's request, so the order could not be treated as jurisdictionally infirm. Any challenge to the correctness of that order was held to lie before the statutory appellate forum under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and no ground for judicial review under Article 226 was made out. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305477