https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402334 In CIRP valuation disputes, continuation with the existing valuer may be preferred where the valuer is already familiar with the corporate debtor, the committee of creditors supports that course, and appointing a fresh valuer would likely prolong an already delayed resolution process. The material stresses that appellate interference is not warranted absent a compelling reason, especially when repeated objections have already caused multiple valuation proceedings. The stated effect is to preserve the existing valuation process and avoid further disruption to the insolvency timeline. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Nov 2021 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402334 In CIRP valuation disputes, continuation with the existing valuer may be preferred where the valuer is already familiar with the corporate debtor, the committee of creditors supports that course, and appointing a fresh valuer would likely prolong an already delayed resolution process. The material stresses that appellate interference is not warranted absent a compelling reason, especially when repeated objections have already caused multiple valuation proceedings. The stated effect is to preserve the existing valuation process and avoid further disruption to the insolvency timeline. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402334