https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397395 The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) erred in allowing the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, as it lacked jurisdiction to permit withdrawal post-approval by the Committee of Creditors. The withdrawal application was deemed barred by Res Judicata, having been previously rejected. The Resolution Plan's validity extends beyond the initial six months post-submission, remaining binding upon CoC approval. Delays in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process were not deemed grounds for withdrawal. Concerns over investigations by SFIO and CBI were addressed under Section 32A of the IBC. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the unsustainable withdrawal decision. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:41:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397395 The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) erred in allowing the withdrawal of the Resolution Plan, as it lacked jurisdiction to permit withdrawal post-approval by the Committee of Creditors. The withdrawal application was deemed barred by Res Judicata, having been previously rejected. The Resolution Plan's validity extends beyond the initial six months post-submission, remaining binding upon CoC approval. Delays in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process were not deemed grounds for withdrawal. Concerns over investigations by SFIO and CBI were addressed under Section 32A of the IBC. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the unsustainable withdrawal decision. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397395