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...
The NCLAT examined a challenge to a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal held that the applicant, as an unsuccessful resolution applicant, lacks locus standi to challenge the plan, except on specific eligibility grounds. The CoC's commercial wisdom in selecting a resolution plan was deemed non-justiciable. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, confirmed Respondent No. 3's eligibility under Section 29A, and determined that a related party connection was not established. The revised financial bid submitted post-timeline was rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original resolution plan's approval.
The NCLAT examined a challenge to a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal held that the applicant, as an unsuccessful resolution applicant, lacks locus standi to challenge the plan, except on specific eligibility grounds. The CoC's commercial wisdom in selecting a resolution plan was deemed non-justiciable. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, confirmed Respondent No. 3's eligibility under Section 29A, and determined that a related party connection was not established. The revised financial bid submitted post-timeline was rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original resolution plan's approval.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.