<?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>2022 (3) TMI 700 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419662</link>
    <description>A resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must meet the statutory minimum payable to operational creditors by reference to the liquidation framework, including proper treatment of workmen&#039;s dues and exclusion of provident fund, pension fund and gratuity from the liquidation estate; the plan was sustained with limited modification on that basis. Disputes over the composition of the Committee of Creditors and a secured creditor&#039;s voting share did not invalidate approval where the creditor&#039;s share remained substantial and the plan was unanimously approved. Pending avoidance proceedings and asserted Section 29A ineligibility did not, by themselves, unsettle an approved plan, as such matters were treated as collateral to the resolution process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 700 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419662</link>
      <description>A resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must meet the statutory minimum payable to operational creditors by reference to the liquidation framework, including proper treatment of workmen&#039;s dues and exclusion of provident fund, pension fund and gratuity from the liquidation estate; the plan was sustained with limited modification on that basis. Disputes over the composition of the Committee of Creditors and a secured creditor&#039;s voting share did not invalidate approval where the creditor&#039;s share remained substantial and the plan was unanimously approved. Pending avoidance proceedings and asserted Section 29A ineligibility did not, by themselves, unsettle an approved plan, as such matters were treated as collateral to the resolution process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>