<?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 1112 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420074</link>
    <description>In insolvency proceedings involving a running hospital, a grievance that a resolution proposal was ignored was rejected where the record showed participation in the Committee of Creditors meeting, an invitation to submit a plan, and no formal eligible plan actually filed. Alleged lapses by the resolution professional in taking possession or control of the hospital were held insufficient to disturb approval of the resolution plan, because physical possession was not required in the same way as in other cases and steps such as visiting the hospital, seeking documents, issuing Form G notice, and continuing the process showed substantial compliance. The approved plan was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:59:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1112 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420074</link>
      <description>In insolvency proceedings involving a running hospital, a grievance that a resolution proposal was ignored was rejected where the record showed participation in the Committee of Creditors meeting, an invitation to submit a plan, and no formal eligible plan actually filed. Alleged lapses by the resolution professional in taking possession or control of the hospital were held insufficient to disturb approval of the resolution plan, because physical possession was not required in the same way as in other cases and steps such as visiting the hospital, seeking documents, issuing Form G notice, and continuing the process showed substantial compliance. The approved plan was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>