https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365566 Section 29A(d) was discussed as applying only where a resolution applicant or connected person had a qualifying conviction for an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more; on the stated facts, the disqualification was not made out. The approved resolution plan was also protected from interference on the ground of operational creditor allocation, because the plan satisfied the Code's minimum framework and commercial distribution choices were left to the creditor approval process. Objections based on preference shares and section 55 of the Companies Act were rejected, as were land-related challenges arising from pending State proceedings, which did not affect title or warrant disruption of the plan. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:54:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365566 Section 29A(d) was discussed as applying only where a resolution applicant or connected person had a qualifying conviction for an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more; on the stated facts, the disqualification was not made out. The approved resolution plan was also protected from interference on the ground of operational creditor allocation, because the plan satisfied the Code's minimum framework and commercial distribution choices were left to the creditor approval process. Objections based on preference shares and section 55 of the Companies Act were rejected, as were land-related challenges arising from pending State proceedings, which did not affect title or warrant disruption of the plan. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365566