https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788624 A successive application under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking substantially the same relief after an earlier similar challenge had been rejected was held not maintainable, because the admission order in the insolvency proceedings had already attained finality and the same allegations could not be re-agitated. The text also notes that concealment of material facts, including non-disclosure of the earlier appeal and its dismissal, and pleadings inconsistent with the record justified dismissal of the appeal and an award of costs. The operative principle is that finality of concluded insolvency proceedings must be respected, and material suppression in such proceedings attracts adverse consequences. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788624 A successive application under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code seeking substantially the same relief after an earlier similar challenge had been rejected was held not maintainable, because the admission order in the insolvency proceedings had already attained finality and the same allegations could not be re-agitated. The text also notes that concealment of material facts, including non-disclosure of the earlier appeal and its dismissal, and pleadings inconsistent with the record justified dismissal of the appeal and an award of costs. The operative principle is that finality of concluded insolvency proceedings must be respected, and material suppression in such proceedings attracts adverse consequences. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788624