<?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 1289 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428344</link>
    <description>Homebuyers constitute a distinct class of financial creditors and cannot claim individual dissenting creditor status to demand separate liquidation value outside the class vote. Communication of resolution plan addendums to the authorised representative was treated as communication to the entire class, and the class vote cast in accordance with the statutory majority bound all members. Allegations of procedural irregularity in the voting process were rejected. Environmental clearance concerns did not justify refusal of the plan where steps had already been taken before the competent authorities to obtain approval. The challenge to the resolution plan failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:40:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1289 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428344</link>
      <description>Homebuyers constitute a distinct class of financial creditors and cannot claim individual dissenting creditor status to demand separate liquidation value outside the class vote. Communication of resolution plan addendums to the authorised representative was treated as communication to the entire class, and the class vote cast in accordance with the statutory majority bound all members. Allegations of procedural irregularity in the voting process were rejected. Environmental clearance concerns did not justify refusal of the plan where steps had already been taken before the competent authorities to obtain approval. The challenge to the resolution plan failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.</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=428344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>