Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.