https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287453 A resolution applicant's failure to make the ordered upfront payment and implement a binding approved resolution plan was treated as breach of the plan, and the later objection that payment had to be linked to an equity share offer letter was rejected as belated and inconsistent with the plain meaning of upfront payment. Because the corporate insolvency process had already run its course and the plan could not be implemented, the plan was cancelled and the corporate debtor was directed into liquidation. The tribunal also held that a later-amended performance-security provision could not be applied retrospectively to forfeit a deposit that had not originally been stipulated as performance security, so forfeiture of the deposit was refused. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:45:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287453 A resolution applicant's failure to make the ordered upfront payment and implement a binding approved resolution plan was treated as breach of the plan, and the later objection that payment had to be linked to an equity share offer letter was rejected as belated and inconsistent with the plain meaning of upfront payment. Because the corporate insolvency process had already run its course and the plan could not be implemented, the plan was cancelled and the corporate debtor was directed into liquidation. The tribunal also held that a later-amended performance-security provision could not be applied retrospectively to forfeit a deposit that had not originally been stipulated as performance security, so forfeiture of the deposit was refused. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287453