<?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>2019 (6) TMI 1029 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381952</link>
    <description>In insolvency liquidation, the tribunal treated revival as the first objective and required the liquidator to explore compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before any sale of the corporate debtor&#039;s assets. The process was to include verification of claims and custody of assets, with sale permitted only if revival efforts failed. The challenge based on rejection of the resolution plan and the later amendment to section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not accepted, as the relevant rejection had occurred before the amendment and the statutory timeline had already expired.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2019 07:39:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1029 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381952</link>
      <description>In insolvency liquidation, the tribunal treated revival as the first objective and required the liquidator to explore compromise or arrangement under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 before any sale of the corporate debtor&#039;s assets. The process was to include verification of claims and custody of assets, with sale permitted only if revival efforts failed. The challenge based on rejection of the resolution plan and the later amendment to section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not accepted, as the relevant rejection had occurred before the amendment and the statutory timeline had already expired.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>