<?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 1552 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291468</link>
    <description>The court approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Linux Laboratories Private Limited, chosen by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) over M/s. Arabella Onco Care Private Limited. The judgment emphasized the CoC&#039;s competency in assessing and selecting the most viable plan for the Corporate Debtor, focusing on feasibility, viability, and adherence to legal requirements. It highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with material proof, particularly regarding financial capabilities. The Resolution Applicant&#039;s rights were clarified, emphasizing the CoC&#039;s discretion in plan selection and the need for objective evaluation. The unsuccessful bidder&#039;s plea for reconsideration was dismissed, affirming the CoC&#039;s decision-making authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:45:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 1552 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291468</link>
      <description>The court approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s. Linux Laboratories Private Limited, chosen by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) over M/s. Arabella Onco Care Private Limited. The judgment emphasized the CoC&#039;s competency in assessing and selecting the most viable plan for the Corporate Debtor, focusing on feasibility, viability, and adherence to legal requirements. It highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with material proof, particularly regarding financial capabilities. The Resolution Applicant&#039;s rights were clarified, emphasizing the CoC&#039;s discretion in plan selection and the need for objective evaluation. The unsuccessful bidder&#039;s plea for reconsideration was dismissed, affirming the CoC&#039;s decision-making authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>