<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Natural justice in insolvency proceedings: a recall application cannot be rejected as review where an ex parte order was passed irregularly.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98387</link>
    <description>Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Natural justice in insolvency proceedings: a recall application cannot be rejected as review where an ex parte order was passed irregularly.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98387</link>
      <description>Where proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Section 424 of the Companies Act, the adjudicatory process must comply with natural justice and the prescribed procedural course. The Appellate Tribunal held that an order shown for pronouncement without a concluded hearing, without a fixed pronouncement date, without an ex parte direction, and without deciding a pending application for additional documents was procedurally defective and ex parte in substance. It further held that an application challenging such defects was a recall application, not a review, so dismissal for want of review jurisdiction was erroneous. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after deciding the document application, subject to costs.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>