<?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 (9) TMI 411 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412066</link>
    <description>At the first-motion stage of a scheme under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal may facilitate convening meetings of creditors or members and appoint officers for that purpose. It should not impose blanket restraints that interfere with creditors&#039; contractual rights or regulatory obligations, including status quo directions, NPA classification, or coercive action, because the approval process depends on the creditors&#039; independent consideration of the scheme. The order directing meetings was upheld, but the restrictive directions were set aside as unnecessary and beyond the proper scope of first-motion proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2021 17:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 411 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412066</link>
      <description>At the first-motion stage of a scheme under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal may facilitate convening meetings of creditors or members and appoint officers for that purpose. It should not impose blanket restraints that interfere with creditors&#039; contractual rights or regulatory obligations, including status quo directions, NPA classification, or coercive action, because the approval process depends on the creditors&#039; independent consideration of the scheme. The order directing meetings was upheld, but the restrictive directions were set aside as unnecessary and beyond the proper scope of first-motion proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>