https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788498 A person seeking to appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be directly and legally affected by the impugned order; a remote grievance arising from separate insolvency proceedings is insufficient, so the appellant lacked locus standi. On merits, alleged ineligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A was not proved because mere association with another CIRP entity did not establish the statutory disqualification, and no formal disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act was shown. The challenge based on suppression also failed because new grounds could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The approved resolution plan was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788498 A person seeking to appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must be directly and legally affected by the impugned order; a remote grievance arising from separate insolvency proceedings is insufficient, so the appellant lacked locus standi. On merits, alleged ineligibility of the successful resolution applicant under Section 29A was not proved because mere association with another CIRP entity did not establish the statutory disqualification, and no formal disqualification under Section 164 of the Companies Act was shown. The challenge based on suppression also failed because new grounds could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The approved resolution plan was left undisturbed. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788498