https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790095 Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies only where cogent material shows fraudulent, malicious, or collusive initiation of CIRP; it cannot be used to reopen findings on debt and default already decided in Section 7 proceedings. The NCLAT noted that the debtor's assignment-based objection had already been considered at admission, the debt was reflected in the corporate debtor's books, and the record did not establish fraud or malice. Refusal to terminate the CIRP was therefore upheld. A separate direction requiring a forensic audit through Canara Bank's empanelled auditor at Canara Bank's cost was set aside as unsupported by the relief sought and beyond the scope of the application. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790095 Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies only where cogent material shows fraudulent, malicious, or collusive initiation of CIRP; it cannot be used to reopen findings on debt and default already decided in Section 7 proceedings. The NCLAT noted that the debtor's assignment-based objection had already been considered at admission, the debt was reflected in the corporate debtor's books, and the record did not establish fraud or malice. Refusal to terminate the CIRP was therefore upheld. A separate direction requiring a forensic audit through Canara Bank's empanelled auditor at Canara Bank's cost was set aside as unsupported by the relief sought and beyond the scope of the application. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790095