https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432803 A suspended shareholder and former director had no enforceable right to intervene in a liquidation-related application merely because of shareholding or prior management status, as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates through a creditor-driven framework and the expression "person aggrieved" cannot be stretched that far. The availability of relief under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as a separate remedy and did not justify impleadment in the insolvency proceeding. The creditor committee's unanimous decision to liquidate, and the adjudicating authority's liquidation order under section 33, attracted limited appellate interference because commercial wisdom of the committee is accorded primacy where the statutory process is followed. The intervention application was therefore not maintainable and no appellate interference was warranted. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2023 21:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432803 A suspended shareholder and former director had no enforceable right to intervene in a liquidation-related application merely because of shareholding or prior management status, as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates through a creditor-driven framework and the expression "person aggrieved" cannot be stretched that far. The availability of relief under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 was treated as a separate remedy and did not justify impleadment in the insolvency proceeding. The creditor committee's unanimous decision to liquidate, and the adjudicating authority's liquidation order under section 33, attracted limited appellate interference because commercial wisdom of the committee is accorded primacy where the statutory process is followed. The intervention application was therefore not maintainable and no appellate interference was warranted. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432803