https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764020 The Rajasthan HC vacated a stay order in a money laundering case involving NCLT jurisdiction. The court found that the petitioner was aware of NCLT Mumbai proceedings but failed to appeal within the statutory 45-day period under IB Code Section 61. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of natural justice violation, noting the petitioner deliberately chose not to intervene in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The HC dismissed the stay application and allowed respondents' application under Article 226(3), directing the petitioner to address jurisdictional issues regarding the writ petition challenging NCLT's vacation of ED attachment orders. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 10:16:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764020 The Rajasthan HC vacated a stay order in a money laundering case involving NCLT jurisdiction. The court found that the petitioner was aware of NCLT Mumbai proceedings but failed to appeal within the statutory 45-day period under IB Code Section 61. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of natural justice violation, noting the petitioner deliberately chose not to intervene in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The HC dismissed the stay application and allowed respondents' application under Article 226(3), directing the petitioner to address jurisdictional issues regarding the writ petition challenging NCLT's vacation of ED attachment orders. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764020