https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784247 The dominant issue was whether an execution court could entertain an application to implead proposed parties and examine allegations of fraud/misrepresentation said to vitiate an NCLT dissolution order of the award-debtor. The HC held that, under ss. 60(5)(c), 63 and 231 of the IBC, all questions of law or fact arising out of or relating to insolvency, liquidation and dissolution-including whether the dissolution order was procured by fraud (reinforced by s. 65)-fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT/NCLAT, and civil court jurisdiction is expressly barred; additionally, an executing court cannot go behind the decree or the dissolution order until set aside in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the execution application and interim application were dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784247 The dominant issue was whether an execution court could entertain an application to implead proposed parties and examine allegations of fraud/misrepresentation said to vitiate an NCLT dissolution order of the award-debtor. The HC held that, under ss. 60(5)(c), 63 and 231 of the IBC, all questions of law or fact arising out of or relating to insolvency, liquidation and dissolution-including whether the dissolution order was procured by fraud (reinforced by s. 65)-fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT/NCLAT, and civil court jurisdiction is expressly barred; additionally, an executing court cannot go behind the decree or the dissolution order until set aside in appropriate proceedings. Consequently, the execution application and interim application were dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784247