https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784265 Where a prior NCLAT judgment had already adjudicated the propriety of admitting a s.9 IBC application and directed admission, the NCLT was bound to give effect to that direction and could not re-examine whether the s.9 preconditions were satisfied, particularly as the earlier judgment had attained finality due to absence of any s.62 challenge before the SC. Consequently, any complaint of non-issuance of notice or lack of hearing before the NCLT, even if assumed, was inconsequential because no effective prejudice could arise against a binding appellate mandate. The appeal was dismissed and the admission into CIRP under s.9 IBC stood. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:18:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784265 Where a prior NCLAT judgment had already adjudicated the propriety of admitting a s.9 IBC application and directed admission, the NCLT was bound to give effect to that direction and could not re-examine whether the s.9 preconditions were satisfied, particularly as the earlier judgment had attained finality due to absence of any s.62 challenge before the SC. Consequently, any complaint of non-issuance of notice or lack of hearing before the NCLT, even if assumed, was inconsequential because no effective prejudice could arise against a binding appellate mandate. The appeal was dismissed and the admission into CIRP under s.9 IBC stood. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784265