<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (3) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109392</link>
    <description>In writ jurisdiction, the court will not reappreciate BIFR&#039;s assessment of a rehabilitation proposal or interfere with its reasoned view on viability and secured creditors&#039; interests unless a jurisdictional or legal infirmity is shown. The revised proposal submitted by the company had been considered and was found broadly similar to an earlier proposal that had not found favour with secured creditors. As consent from secured creditors had not been obtained, BIFR was entitled to proceed as it did. No infirmity in the impugned directions or jurisdictional error was established, and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:22:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146409" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109392</link>
      <description>In writ jurisdiction, the court will not reappreciate BIFR&#039;s assessment of a rehabilitation proposal or interfere with its reasoned view on viability and secured creditors&#039; interests unless a jurisdictional or legal infirmity is shown. The revised proposal submitted by the company had been considered and was found broadly similar to an earlier proposal that had not found favour with secured creditors. As consent from secured creditors had not been obtained, BIFR was entitled to proceed as it did. No infirmity in the impugned directions or jurisdictional error was established, and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>