Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan application by the Resolution Professional (RP) was improper due to non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority can only reject a Resolution Plan if it violates Section 30(2) with proper reasons and material. The lack of specific reasons for non-compliance in the impugned order led to setting aside the decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the application, allowing the RP to submit missing Minutes and Documents within two weeks to avoid further delays. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, held that the rejection of the Resolution Plan application by the Resolution Professional (RP) was improper due to non-compliance with Section 30(2)(b) and Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority can only reject a Resolution Plan if it violates Section 30(2) with proper reasons and material. The lack of specific reasons for non-compliance in the impugned order led to setting aside the decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to reconsider the application, allowing the RP to submit missing Minutes and Documents within two weeks to avoid further delays. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
