<?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>2021 (5) TMI 10 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407131</link>
    <description>An approved resolution plan may be revised to change the funding mechanism and related shareholding pattern where the plan itself permits flexibility in the mode and source of funds, and the substantive treatment of creditors remains unchanged. The Tribunal treated the proposed adjustment as administrative, not a material alteration, because stakeholder payments and rights were preserved and no objection was raised. It also excluded the period of delay caused by the RBI&#039;s refusal to permit equity infusion, finding that the setback arose from an external regulatory impediment rather than any default by the resolution applicant. The revised implementation timeline was therefore accepted to support a feasible resolution and protect the corporate debtor as a going concern.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 May 2021 09:29:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 10 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407131</link>
      <description>An approved resolution plan may be revised to change the funding mechanism and related shareholding pattern where the plan itself permits flexibility in the mode and source of funds, and the substantive treatment of creditors remains unchanged. The Tribunal treated the proposed adjustment as administrative, not a material alteration, because stakeholder payments and rights were preserved and no objection was raised. It also excluded the period of delay caused by the RBI&#039;s refusal to permit equity infusion, finding that the setback arose from an external regulatory impediment rather than any default by the resolution applicant. The revised implementation timeline was therefore accepted to support a feasible resolution and protect the corporate debtor as a going concern.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>