https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84216 The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the appellant's prayer to recall the admission order. Regarding withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A of the IBC, the NCLAT held that since the Section 7 application was filed by respondents 6-9, and not by the applicants who initiated it, compliance with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A cannot be made, and withdrawal u/s 12A is not permissible. However, the NCLAT observed that if the Adjudicating Authority concludes that the ingredients of Section 65 are attracted (application filed with fraudulent/malicious intent), it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to close the CIRP proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in SBI vs. Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan & Florian Fritsch, the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can exercise inherent powers in appropriate cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:43:26 +0530 Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:43:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84216 The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the appellant's prayer to recall the admission order. Regarding withdrawal of CIRP u/s 12A of the IBC, the NCLAT held that since the Section 7 application was filed by respondents 6-9, and not by the applicants who initiated it, compliance with Section 12A read with Regulation 30A cannot be made, and withdrawal u/s 12A is not permissible. However, the NCLAT observed that if the Adjudicating Authority concludes that the ingredients of Section 65 are attracted (application filed with fraudulent/malicious intent), it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to close the CIRP proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in SBI vs. Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan & Florian Fritsch, the NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority can exercise inherent powers in appropriate cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of. Highlights IBC Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:43:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84216