https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412327 The Supreme Court held that a successful Resolution Applicant cannot withdraw or modify its Resolution Plan after submission to the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need for a time-bound and predictable insolvency resolution process under the IBC. The Court clarified that withdrawals or modifications would disrupt this objective and should be addressed through legislative changes, not judicial interpretation. The Court allowed Kundan Care to withdraw its Resolution Plan due to lack of conditions precedent, while denying Seroco's attempt to modify its plan based on the COVID-19 pandemic, stressing that common law remedies do not apply to Resolution Plans. The Court dismissed appeals by Ebix and Seroco, providing one-time relief to Kundan Care under Article 142 of the Constitution. en-us Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jul 2022 15:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412327 The Supreme Court held that a successful Resolution Applicant cannot withdraw or modify its Resolution Plan after submission to the Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need for a time-bound and predictable insolvency resolution process under the IBC. The Court clarified that withdrawals or modifications would disrupt this objective and should be addressed through legislative changes, not judicial interpretation. The Court allowed Kundan Care to withdraw its Resolution Plan due to lack of conditions precedent, while denying Seroco's attempt to modify its plan based on the COVID-19 pandemic, stressing that common law remedies do not apply to Resolution Plans. The Court dismissed appeals by Ebix and Seroco, providing one-time relief to Kundan Care under Article 142 of the Constitution. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 13 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412327