https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794642 Finality and res judicata barred a challenge to liquidation where the same grievances had already been rejected in earlier proceedings and those orders had attained finality. The tribunal treated the fresh appeal as an impermissible re-agitation of concluded issues and a collateral attack on binding inter partes orders. Liquidation was also upheld because the one-time payment proposal was submitted only after hearing had concluded and orders were reserved, had not been approved by lenders or placed for variation of the approved plan, and came after more than three years of non-implementation and failure to secure required approvals. The Code's time-bound resolution and value-preservation objectives supported liquidation, and the challenge failed with costs. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:35:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794642 Finality and res judicata barred a challenge to liquidation where the same grievances had already been rejected in earlier proceedings and those orders had attained finality. The tribunal treated the fresh appeal as an impermissible re-agitation of concluded issues and a collateral attack on binding inter partes orders. Liquidation was also upheld because the one-time payment proposal was submitted only after hearing had concluded and orders were reserved, had not been approved by lenders or placed for variation of the approved plan, and came after more than three years of non-implementation and failure to secure required approvals. The Code's time-bound resolution and value-preservation objectives supported liquidation, and the challenge failed with costs. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794642