https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784514 The dominant issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal should interfere with an order directing enforcement of an earlier unchallenged direction to remit CIRP costs, with a warning of contempt action for continued non-compliance. Since the earlier order fixing liability to pay CIRP dues had not been appealed and remained binding, its directions were mandatorily enforceable; the subsequent order merely sought compliance and only contemplated initiation of contempt proceedings, without any adjudication or punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. Holding that no present cause of action arose to challenge an enforcement direction when the foundational liability order was neither challenged nor complied with, the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 08:03:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784514 The dominant issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal should interfere with an order directing enforcement of an earlier unchallenged direction to remit CIRP costs, with a warning of contempt action for continued non-compliance. Since the earlier order fixing liability to pay CIRP dues had not been appealed and remained binding, its directions were mandatorily enforceable; the subsequent order merely sought compliance and only contemplated initiation of contempt proceedings, without any adjudication or punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. Holding that no present cause of action arose to challenge an enforcement direction when the foundational liability order was neither challenged nor complied with, the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784514