https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793422 Section 95 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were not liable to rejection merely because the debt particulars were said to be insufficient under Section 95(4)(a). The text treats that requirement as procedural and facilitative, meant to give the Adjudicating Authority prima facie particulars, not as a rigid bar where the debt and liability were already disclosed in the application and supporting documents. Prior SARFAESI and DRT proceedings, including a compromise reflecting an admitted and settled liability, reinforced that the debt was already acknowledged. A challenge raised for the first time at the appellate stage could not be used to build a new objection. The admission orders were therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793422 Section 95 applications under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were not liable to rejection merely because the debt particulars were said to be insufficient under Section 95(4)(a). The text treats that requirement as procedural and facilitative, meant to give the Adjudicating Authority prima facie particulars, not as a rigid bar where the debt and liability were already disclosed in the application and supporting documents. Prior SARFAESI and DRT proceedings, including a compromise reflecting an admitted and settled liability, reinforced that the debt was already acknowledged. A challenge raised for the first time at the appellate stage could not be used to build a new objection. The admission orders were therefore upheld. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793422