https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423107 The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the appeal against the rejection of I.A (I.B.C)/101(KB)2022 by the Appellant. It concluded that after relinquishing security, the Appellant's entitlement to payment was governed by Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Citing relevant case law, including "Technology Development Board vs. Mr. Anil Goel & Ors." and "India Resurgence ARC Private Limited vs. Amit Metaliks Limited and Anr.," the Tribunal emphasized that dissenting creditors could not claim higher amounts based on security interest value. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the distribution principles under Section 53. en-us Thu, 26 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2022 13:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423107 The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to reject the appeal against the rejection of I.A (I.B.C)/101(KB)2022 by the Appellant. It concluded that after relinquishing security, the Appellant's entitlement to payment was governed by Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Citing relevant case law, including "Technology Development Board vs. Mr. Anil Goel & Ors." and "India Resurgence ARC Private Limited vs. Amit Metaliks Limited and Anr.," the Tribunal emphasized that dissenting creditors could not claim higher amounts based on security interest value. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the distribution principles under Section 53. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 26 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423107