NCLAT upheld the impugned order, holding that the eligibility criteria under s.29A IBC, as incorporated in the RFRP, had to be satisfied by the resolution applicant at three stages: submission of the resolution plan, its consideration by the CoC, and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, a CoC member, had accepted these terms without objection. Since the successful resolution applicant had been declared a wilful defaulter prior to submission of the revised plan, it was ineligible under s.29A on the filing date, rendering the plan non-compliant with s.30(2) and related regulations. NCLAT agreed that a fresh plan could be considered by the CoC with other eligible plans and found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order, dismissing the appeals as meritless.
NCLAT upheld the impugned order, holding that the eligibility criteria under s.29A IBC, as incorporated in the RFRP, had to be satisfied by the resolution applicant at three stages: submission of the resolution plan, its consideration by the CoC, and approval by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant, a CoC member, had accepted these terms without objection. Since the successful resolution applicant had been declared a wilful defaulter prior to submission of the revised plan, it was ineligible under s.29A on the filing date, rendering the plan non-compliant with s.30(2) and related regulations. NCLAT agreed that a fresh plan could be considered by the CoC with other eligible plans and found no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order, dismissing the appeals as meritless.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
