<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1916 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298031</link>
    <description>A newly appointed Resolution Professional was not permitted to review or alter an earlier detailed and reasoned decision, because allowing successive Resolution Professionals to change their predecessors&#039; decisions would undermine certainty and finality in the insolvency process. Review of the earlier decision was declined, and compliance with the existing order was directed within a fixed time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 21:51:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1916 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298031</link>
      <description>A newly appointed Resolution Professional was not permitted to review or alter an earlier detailed and reasoned decision, because allowing successive Resolution Professionals to change their predecessors&#039; decisions would undermine certainty and finality in the insolvency process. Review of the earlier decision was declined, and compliance with the existing order was directed within a fixed time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>