https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368346 The SC held that both resolution applicants were ineligible under Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as their related corporate debtors had not cleared their NPAs. Section 29A(c) bars persons having "control" over corporate debtors with NPAs from submitting resolution plans, with control encompassing both de jure and de facto positive control. The proviso to Section 29A(c) provides relief only if related corporate debtors clear their NPAs. Exercising powers under Article 142, the SC granted both applicants two weeks to pay off their related corporate debtors' NPAs. If payments are made, they may resubmit resolution plans, and the Committee of Creditors has eight weeks to select the best plan by requisite majority. Failure to accept any plan would result in the corporate debtor's liquidation. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 12:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368346 The SC held that both resolution applicants were ineligible under Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as their related corporate debtors had not cleared their NPAs. Section 29A(c) bars persons having "control" over corporate debtors with NPAs from submitting resolution plans, with control encompassing both de jure and de facto positive control. The proviso to Section 29A(c) provides relief only if related corporate debtors clear their NPAs. Exercising powers under Article 142, the SC granted both applicants two weeks to pay off their related corporate debtors' NPAs. If payments are made, they may resubmit resolution plans, and the Committee of Creditors has eight weeks to select the best plan by requisite majority. Failure to accept any plan would result in the corporate debtor's liquidation. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368346