<?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 (5) TMI 579 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AMARAVATI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422319</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of an admitted insolvency application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can be sought only by the creditor who filed the proceeding, with the required committee approval, and the Tribunal&#039;s inherent powers cannot be used to compel withdrawal at the corporate debtor&#039;s instance. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules does not override that statutory withdrawal mechanism. On the facts, the parties had only negotiated a possible settlement and no final signed settlement was shown, so the Tribunal declined to direct acceptance of the draft terms or compel withdrawal, while allowing the parties to continue settlement discussions in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2022 07:50:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 579 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , AMARAVATI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422319</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of an admitted insolvency application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can be sought only by the creditor who filed the proceeding, with the required committee approval, and the Tribunal&#039;s inherent powers cannot be used to compel withdrawal at the corporate debtor&#039;s instance. Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules does not override that statutory withdrawal mechanism. On the facts, the parties had only negotiated a possible settlement and no final signed settlement was shown, so the Tribunal declined to direct acceptance of the draft terms or compel withdrawal, while allowing the parties to continue settlement discussions in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>