https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789241 Where the foundational order under Section 114(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had attained finality and was not challenged, later bankruptcy steps under Sections 115(2), 121 and 123 were treated as consequential and legally sustainable. The unassailed adjudication could not be reopened indirectly by objecting to the bankruptcy application. The Tribunal also held that, in these facts, a fresh show-cause notice or additional hearing was not mandatory before proceeding under Section 121, because the process had already passed through the earlier statutory stages and the applicants were bound by waiver and finality of the prior order. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 08:51:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789241 Where the foundational order under Section 114(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had attained finality and was not challenged, later bankruptcy steps under Sections 115(2), 121 and 123 were treated as consequential and legally sustainable. The unassailed adjudication could not be reopened indirectly by objecting to the bankruptcy application. The Tribunal also held that, in these facts, a fresh show-cause notice or additional hearing was not mandatory before proceeding under Section 121, because the process had already passed through the earlier statutory stages and the applicants were bound by waiver and finality of the prior order. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789241