https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419960 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Regulation 9A, concluding that decree holders are appropriately classified separately from financial and operational creditors. Decree holders' rights are acknowledged but limited during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The court emphasized the objective of maximizing the corporate debtor's assets for all stakeholders and justified the exclusion of decree holders from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to maintain the non-adversarial nature of the insolvency resolution process. The writ petition was dismissed. en-us Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Mar 2022 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419960 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Regulation 9A, concluding that decree holders are appropriately classified separately from financial and operational creditors. Decree holders' rights are acknowledged but limited during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) due to the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The court emphasized the objective of maximizing the corporate debtor's assets for all stakeholders and justified the exclusion of decree holders from the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to maintain the non-adversarial nature of the insolvency resolution process. The writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419960