https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287039 The tribunal rejected the shareholders' application to consider their settlement plan, citing the Supreme Court's directive and the limitations imposed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IB Code). The tribunal emphasized the IB Code's overriding effect, specifically Section 12A, which governs the settlement of debt post-admission of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) application. It held that shareholders do not have the right to propose settlement plans after the CIRP admission and must adhere to the procedures outlined in the IB Code. The decision underscored the constitutional validity of Section 12A and upheld the collective benefit of creditors over individual settlements. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2020 09:42:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287039 The tribunal rejected the shareholders' application to consider their settlement plan, citing the Supreme Court's directive and the limitations imposed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IB Code). The tribunal emphasized the IB Code's overriding effect, specifically Section 12A, which governs the settlement of debt post-admission of a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) application. It held that shareholders do not have the right to propose settlement plans after the CIRP admission and must adhere to the procedures outlined in the IB Code. The decision underscored the constitutional validity of Section 12A and upheld the collective benefit of creditors over individual settlements. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287039