https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782689 The NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the company appeal as not maintainable, holding that a shareholder/promoter does not qualify as an "aggrieved person" under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for challenging an order admitting a Section 7 or Section 9 application and commencing CIRP. Relying on a prior larger Bench ruling, the Tribunal held that an appeal against admission of CIRP at the behest of a shareholder is barred for want of locus standi. Consequently, the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of non-maintainability. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782689 The NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the company appeal as not maintainable, holding that a shareholder/promoter does not qualify as an "aggrieved person" under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for challenging an order admitting a Section 7 or Section 9 application and commencing CIRP. Relying on a prior larger Bench ruling, the Tribunal held that an appeal against admission of CIRP at the behest of a shareholder is barred for want of locus standi. Consequently, the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of non-maintainability. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782689