TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 Committee of Creditors' decision to initiate a process for price discovery and sale of the corporate debtor's investments was liable to be interfered with in view of Regulations 28 and 29 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016.
Analysis: Regulation 29 contemplates sale of unencumbered assets in accordance with the prescribed , and the Tribunal found that a process meant only for price discovery in respect of encumbered investments would not align with the object of maximising value. It was also held that the procedural requirement under Regulation 28 had been complied with, and that the investment in one asset was encumbered while the other was unencumbered. The order further recognised that sale of the encumbered investment could proceed only after removal of encumbrances, and that the process for the unencumbered asset could continue under Regulation 29, but not merely as a price discovery exercise divorced from the statutory framework.
Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned decision was rejected, and the Tribunal held that the statutory process under Regulation 29 could proceed after compliance with the conditions applicable to encumbered and unencumbered assets, as the case may be.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the impugned order was left undisturbed insofar as it permitted further action consistent with the CIRP Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: A process under the CIRP Regulations for sale of assets must conform to the statutory distinction between encumbered and unencumbered assets, and a price-discovery exercise cannot override the requirements of Regulation 29 or the objective of value maximisation.
TaxTMI 
