Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
This appeal challenges the approval of a resolution plan by the adjudicating authority. The appellant contends that the resolution professional (RP) failed to disclose certain commercial spaces (4th to 9th floors) belonging to the corporate debtor. However, the NCLAT finds this submission incorrect based on the information memorandum and virtual data room shared with the appellant as a resolution applicant. The entire Westin Hotel, including the disputed floors assigned to another entity, belonged to the corporate debtor. The resolution plan was invited on an "as is where is basis," and all applicants were required to conduct due diligence. The appellant's failure to seek clarification cannot be attributed to the RP's non-disclosure. Therefore, the NCLAT dismisses the application challenging the approved resolution plan, finding no merit in the appellant's submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.