Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.