Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
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 NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority. The key findings were: The adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method by the CoC for value maximization was an outcome of its commercial wisdom, which cannot be interfered with. The appellant's contention questioning the Swiss Challenge method lacked merit. The Resolution Professional (RP) conducted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) fairly and transparently, providing equal opportunity to all resolution applicants. The CoC duly considered and evaluated the revised resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant (SRA) before approval. The appellant's claim of denial of effective participation in CoC meetings was unfounded. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in approving the SRA's resolution plan, as no grounds u/s 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) were established to interfere with the CoC's commercial decision. The NCLAT upheld the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom and found no irregularities in the CIRP conduct by the RP.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging the approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Adjudicating Authority. The key findings were: The adoption of the Swiss Challenge Method by the CoC for value maximization was an outcome of its commercial wisdom, which cannot be interfered with. The appellant's contention questioning the Swiss Challenge method lacked merit. The Resolution Professional (RP) conducted the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) fairly and transparently, providing equal opportunity to all resolution applicants. The CoC duly considered and evaluated the revised resolution plan of the successful resolution applicant (SRA) before approval. The appellant's claim of denial of effective participation in CoC meetings was unfounded. The Adjudicating Authority did not err in approving the SRA's resolution plan, as no grounds u/s 61(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) were established to interfere with the CoC's commercial decision. The NCLAT upheld the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom and found no irregularities in the CIRP conduct by the RP.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
