https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791901 Participation by counsel in the merits proceedings and recorded hearing defeated the plea of non-impleadment, want of notice and denial of hearing, so recall of the order was not maintainable and its rejection stood. The challenge to the original insolvency order was also time-barred under the statutory appeal period, and the appellant could not first pursue an impermissible recall route and then seek exclusion of time under the Limitation Act. As the delay in filing the appeal against the original order was not condonable, both appeals failed. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 08:31:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791901 Participation by counsel in the merits proceedings and recorded hearing defeated the plea of non-impleadment, want of notice and denial of hearing, so recall of the order was not maintainable and its rejection stood. The challenge to the original insolvency order was also time-barred under the statutory appeal period, and the appellant could not first pursue an impermissible recall route and then seek exclusion of time under the Limitation Act. As the delay in filing the appeal against the original order was not condonable, both appeals failed. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791901