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: Whether the Adjudicating Authority rightly approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant and whether implementation of the approved Resolution Plan should be kept in abeyance pending Civil Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning the status of certain assets.
Analysis: The Resolution Plan was submitted by the Appellant based on the Information Memorandum which disclosed the status of all 12 tea gardens. The Committee of Creditors approved the Plan with the requisite voting share and the Adjudicating Authority approved the Plan in terms of the Tribunal's earlier judgment determining which tea gardens constituted assets of the corporate debtor. The scope for interference with approval of a resolution plan is limited by the statutory scheme which accords primacy to the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and restricts judicial review of that commercial decision. The Adjudicating Authority expressly conditioned approval on compliance with the Tribunal's findings regarding assets and did not contravene Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Appellant's request for a stay of implementation pending disposal of separate Civil Appeals did not establish sufficient basis to withhold implementation because no interim order in favour of the Appellant was shown to exist from the Supreme Court and the approval was in conformity with the Tribunal's determination on assets.
Conclusion: Appeal dismissed; the Adjudicating Authority's approval of the Resolution Plan is upheld (not in favour of the Appellant).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
