https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768715 A sole proprietorship concern does not fall within the definition of a corporate person or corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so a petition under Section 94 could not be maintained to trigger interim moratorium under Section 96. The text also notes that once the competent authority had passed an order on the representation, the stage was concluded and the authority became functus officio; a subordinate officer could not re-adjudicate the objection or representation. On that basis, no restraint was available against possession recovery, and the writ petition was dismissed as misconceived. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Apr 2025 16:43:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768715 A sole proprietorship concern does not fall within the definition of a corporate person or corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so a petition under Section 94 could not be maintained to trigger interim moratorium under Section 96. The text also notes that once the competent authority had passed an order on the representation, the stage was concluded and the authority became functus officio; a subordinate officer could not re-adjudicate the objection or representation. On that basis, no restraint was available against possession recovery, and the writ petition was dismissed as misconceived. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768715