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...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT's order approving the resolution plan for the corporate debtor. It held that, although the appellant's expenditure on the corporate debtor had been acknowledged in prior proceedings, the appellant failed to substantiate its claim as financial or operational debt under the IBC, particularly given the delayed filing, absence of supporting documents, and an exorbitant, contractually unsupported interest component. NCLAT found no contravention of s.30(2)(b) IBC or the CIRP Regulations and reiterated the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom, especially where the plan had been approved with 100% voting share. As the resolution plan complied with all mandatory statutory requirements and no material irregularity was established, judicial interference was held to be unwarranted. The successful resolution applicant was permitted to proceed in terms of the approved plan, and the appeal was disposed of.
NCLAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the NCLT's order approving the resolution plan for the corporate debtor. It held that, although the appellant's expenditure on the corporate debtor had been acknowledged in prior proceedings, the appellant failed to substantiate its claim as financial or operational debt under the IBC, particularly given the delayed filing, absence of supporting documents, and an exorbitant, contractually unsupported interest component. NCLAT found no contravention of s.30(2)(b) IBC or the CIRP Regulations and reiterated the primacy of the CoC's commercial wisdom, especially where the plan had been approved with 100% voting share. As the resolution plan complied with all mandatory statutory requirements and no material irregularity was established, judicial interference was held to be unwarranted. The successful resolution applicant was permitted to proceed in terms of the approved plan, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.