<?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 (9) TMI 277 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427332</link>
    <description>An insolvency professional must act with reasonable care, diligence, transparency and responsibility, and where a withdrawal application under Section 12A is filed before constitution of the committee of creditors, the process should not be mechanically continued without clear directions from the Adjudicating Authority. Here, continuation of the corporate insolvency resolution process after the withdrawal request was found unjustified, the disallowance of valuation-related and certain legal insolvency resolution process expenses as non-essential was upheld on the record, and adverse remarks on the interim resolution professional&#039;s conduct were held warranted because avoidable costs were incurred without adequate clarification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 09:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 277 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427332</link>
      <description>An insolvency professional must act with reasonable care, diligence, transparency and responsibility, and where a withdrawal application under Section 12A is filed before constitution of the committee of creditors, the process should not be mechanically continued without clear directions from the Adjudicating Authority. Here, continuation of the corporate insolvency resolution process after the withdrawal request was found unjustified, the disallowance of valuation-related and certain legal insolvency resolution process expenses as non-essential was upheld on the record, and adverse remarks on the interim resolution professional&#039;s conduct were held warranted because avoidable costs were incurred without adequate clarification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>