TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the approval of sale of the asset could be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the appellant was not impleaded in the approval proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. (ii) Whether the approval of the sale transaction could be interfered with on the basis that the earlier order of the Tribunal had been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Issue (i): Whether the approval of sale of the asset could be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the appellant was not impleaded in the approval proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.
Analysis: The appellant was already a member of the creditors committee with a voting share, had notice of the sale process, participated in the meeting, raised objections, and voted against the resolution. The approval process was undertaken under the revised resolution framework and the appellant's dissent was already on record. In these circumstances, non-impleadment in the approval application did not amount to denial of hearing or breach of natural justice.
Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of violation of natural justice failed and the sale approval could not be invalidated on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the approval of the sale transaction could be interfered with on the basis that the earlier order of the Tribunal had been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Analysis: A stay of operation does not wipe out the stayed order, but it only keeps it inoperative during the pendency of the challenge. The issue pending before the Supreme Court concerned reversal of amounts debited from the escrow account and did not operate as a bar against the Adjudicating Authority proceeding with approval of the asset sale under the resolution framework. The sale had already been approved through the contractual and resolution process, including creditor approval and approval by the overseeing authority.
Conclusion: The pending Supreme Court proceedings did not furnish a ground to interfere with the impugned approval order.
Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the sale approval failed, and no interim or ancillary relief survived for grant.
Ratio Decidendi: A dissenting creditor who has participated in and objected within the collective resolution process cannot insist on separate impleadment in the subsequent approval proceeding, and a stay of an earlier order does not preclude completion of a distinct sale-approval process under the applicable resolution framework.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
