<?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 (10) TMI 65 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428507</link>
    <description>A claim under a resolution plan was rejected because the claimant did not produce supporting documents for verification and raised the claim only after approval of the plan. Once a resolution plan is approved, it binds stakeholders on a clean-slate basis, so claims not included in the plan cannot be revived later. The claimant was also denied payment from the contingency fund, because that fund was only a limited provision for unresolved claims during the stipulated period, had expired, and the plan had already been fully implemented with no balance remaining. The rejection of the claim and denial of contingency fund payment were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2022 08:56:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 65 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428507</link>
      <description>A claim under a resolution plan was rejected because the claimant did not produce supporting documents for verification and raised the claim only after approval of the plan. Once a resolution plan is approved, it binds stakeholders on a clean-slate basis, so claims not included in the plan cannot be revived later. The claimant was also denied payment from the contingency fund, because that fund was only a limited provision for unresolved claims during the stipulated period, had expired, and the plan had already been fully implemented with no balance remaining. The rejection of the claim and denial of contingency fund payment were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>