Central Government rescinds 2009 notification de-notifying 14.2903-hectare IT/ITES Special Economic Zone after applicant request, state NOC, recommend...
The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed the appeal and held that the adjudicating authority (NCLT) erred in rejecting the appellant's claim. The appellant had timely submitted proof of claim within the prescribed filing period under the CIRP of the principal corporate debtor; the IRP/RP is statutorily obliged to receive, collate and verify claims under ss.18 and 25(2)(e) of the IBC and to apply binding judicial precedent. The RP's legal interpretation and consequent omission to admit the claim materially affected the resolution process. As the resolution plan remains unapproved, the matter is remitted for reconsideration consistent with law and the duty of the RP to admit valid claims.
The Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allowed the appeal and held that the adjudicating authority (NCLT) erred in rejecting the appellant's claim. The appellant had timely submitted proof of claim within the prescribed filing period under the CIRP of the principal corporate debtor; the IRP/RP is statutorily obliged to receive, collate and verify claims under ss.18 and 25(2)(e) of the IBC and to apply binding judicial precedent. The RP's legal interpretation and consequent omission to admit the claim materially affected the resolution process. As the resolution plan remains unapproved, the matter is remitted for reconsideration consistent with law and the duty of the RP to admit valid claims.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
