https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756508 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant failed to challenge the recall order within the 30-day limitation under Section 61 of the IBC, and thus could not contest it in the current appeal. It clarified that separate challenges were required for distinct orders. The Appellant's OTS offer was rejected, and the Resolution Plan in the CIRP of the Principal Borrower was approved. The Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Section 95 application, emphasizing the need to consider all aspects, including amounts received in the CIRP, when finalizing the Personal Guarantor's Resolution Plan. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Aug 2024 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756508 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant failed to challenge the recall order within the 30-day limitation under Section 61 of the IBC, and thus could not contest it in the current appeal. It clarified that separate challenges were required for distinct orders. The Appellant's OTS offer was rejected, and the Resolution Plan in the CIRP of the Principal Borrower was approved. The Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's decision to admit the Section 95 application, emphasizing the need to consider all aspects, including amounts received in the CIRP, when finalizing the Personal Guarantor's Resolution Plan. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 02 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756508