– By By Adv. Amir Bavani, Adv. Rishika Kumar & Divya K, AB Legal

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) has been designed to create a strong insolvency regime which saves businesses that are viable and facilitates the exit of those that are not, in a time-bound manner. The Code lays emphasis on an elaborate corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP’) wherein the resolution plan can be proposed, considered, decided and approved. The approval of a resolution plan under the Code, marks the conclusion of the CIRP, thereby bringing an end to all the proceedings and disputes relating to the insolvency and resolution of the Corporate Debtor. In this framework a critical issue that arises is whether, subsequent to such approval, any creditor or other person claiming to have an interest in the matter may be permitted to challenge or seek reopening of the CIRP on the basis that the Resolution Professional or the Committee of Creditors failed to adequately safeguard or give due consideration to the rights or interests of such party during the conduct of the resolution process. Consequently, can the Adjudicating Authority or Appellate Authority recall an order on the ground that the aggrieved parties are unjustly deprived of presenting their case during the CIRP or their rights were unjustifiably overlooked. The, present article ponders upon whether the Adjudicating Authority has the inherent power to recall its own order under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (‘NCLT Rules, 2016’).

Read the full article HERE.