Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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.