<?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>Resolution Plan Invalidated for Favoring Canara Bank, Violating IBC by Unequal Creditor Treatment and Fund Distribution.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61606</link>
    <description>Validity of Resolution Plan - Category A are those assets which are required for the Corporate Debtor for running the business and non-core assets are those assets which are not required for running the business - The Resolution Applicant unable to justify the basis of categorization of the Financial Creditors in category A and B. It is undisputed that when this resolution plan was submitted before the CoC at that time the Appellant has raised a serious objection in regard to categorization. The Resolution Applicant is unable to convince us that the categorization is based on sound principle. - The Respondents are unable to convince that on pro-rata basis why the Canara Bank is getting more amount in comparison to the Appellant. Therefore, we hold that the resolution plan is discriminatory between two set of creditors similarly situated and is in violation of the IBC. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:50:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:50:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Resolution Plan Invalidated for Favoring Canara Bank, Violating IBC by Unequal Creditor Treatment and Fund Distribution.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61606</link>
      <description>Validity of Resolution Plan - Category A are those assets which are required for the Corporate Debtor for running the business and non-core assets are those assets which are not required for running the business - The Resolution Applicant unable to justify the basis of categorization of the Financial Creditors in category A and B. It is undisputed that when this resolution plan was submitted before the CoC at that time the Appellant has raised a serious objection in regard to categorization. The Resolution Applicant is unable to convince us that the categorization is based on sound principle. - The Respondents are unable to convince that on pro-rata basis why the Canara Bank is getting more amount in comparison to the Appellant. Therefore, we hold that the resolution plan is discriminatory between two set of creditors similarly situated and is in violation of the IBC. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:50:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>