<?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 1070 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428125</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal and directing the Liquidator to accept the nomination of Mr. Vivek Shukla as the representative of the Shareholders in the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC). The Tribunal found the Liquidator&#039;s rejection of the majority nomination incorrect, emphasizing that Regulation 31A(3) does not require unanimous nomination. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order was deemed lawful, with no illegality or infirmity noted. The Tribunal instructed compliance with the law and highlighted ongoing arbitration proceedings and potential conflicts of interest involving the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2022 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1070 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428125</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal and directing the Liquidator to accept the nomination of Mr. Vivek Shukla as the representative of the Shareholders in the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC). The Tribunal found the Liquidator&#039;s rejection of the majority nomination incorrect, emphasizing that Regulation 31A(3) does not require unanimous nomination. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order was deemed lawful, with no illegality or infirmity noted. The Tribunal instructed compliance with the law and highlighted ongoing arbitration proceedings and potential conflicts of interest involving the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>