Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
The Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of a CoC-approved resolution plan cannot rest on a general perception of unfairness or material irregularity where the CIRP was conducted in accordance with the sole financial creditor's decisions and the Adjudicating Authority had not found statutory non-compliance or ineligibility. It also found no foundation for alleged informational asymmetry, because the Information Memorandum disclosed the mismatch in title documents and possession, access to the data room was available to all applicants, and bidding proceeded on an as is where is basis. The impugned rejection was set aside, the approval application was revived for fresh consideration, and the unsuccessful applicant's challenges were closed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that rejection of a CoC-approved resolution plan cannot rest on a general perception of unfairness or material irregularity where the CIRP was conducted in accordance with the sole financial creditor's decisions and the Adjudicating Authority had not found statutory non-compliance or ineligibility. It also found no foundation for alleged informational asymmetry, because the Information Memorandum disclosed the mismatch in title documents and possession, access to the data room was available to all applicants, and bidding proceeded on an as is where is basis. The impugned rejection was set aside, the approval application was revived for fresh consideration, and the unsuccessful applicant's challenges were closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.