<?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>2018 (6) TMI 853 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362026</link>
    <description>In insolvency resolution, the note states that process documents and internal evaluation mechanisms cannot be used to defeat the Code&#039;s objective of value maximisation and fair stakeholder treatment. It highlights that the resolution professional must act independently and transparently, with restraint in incurring costs, proper participation of suspended board representatives where required, and lawful verification and consideration of operational creditor claims. It also states that a revised higher offer made before completion of CIRP and before final approval should not be rejected on merely technical grounds. The resolution plan, as described, was considered defective for discriminatory treatment of similarly placed unsecured financial creditors and inadequate treatment of operational creditors, requiring reconsideration of competing offers and creditor distribution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 853 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362026</link>
      <description>In insolvency resolution, the note states that process documents and internal evaluation mechanisms cannot be used to defeat the Code&#039;s objective of value maximisation and fair stakeholder treatment. It highlights that the resolution professional must act independently and transparently, with restraint in incurring costs, proper participation of suspended board representatives where required, and lawful verification and consideration of operational creditor claims. It also states that a revised higher offer made before completion of CIRP and before final approval should not be rejected on merely technical grounds. The resolution plan, as described, was considered defective for discriminatory treatment of similarly placed unsecured financial creditors and inadequate treatment of operational creditors, requiring reconsideration of competing offers and creditor distribution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>