https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445425 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the same monetary claim from insolvency and liquidation proceedings was already pending before the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Court found no basis to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction for parallel adjudication of the remittance claim, particularly since the dispute arose from the liquidation process and assignment of not readily realisable assets under Regulation 37A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. In that context, the Court declined to examine the alleged breach of Section 37(3) of the Indian Post Office Act and upheld the dismissal of the petition. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Nov 2023 09:05:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445425 A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where the same monetary claim from insolvency and liquidation proceedings was already pending before the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Court found no basis to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction for parallel adjudication of the remittance claim, particularly since the dispute arose from the liquidation process and assignment of not readily realisable assets under Regulation 37A of the Liquidation Process Regulations. In that context, the Court declined to examine the alleged breach of Section 37(3) of the Indian Post Office Act and upheld the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 07 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445425