<?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 95 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428537</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% voting, dismissing the appellant&#039;s claims of discrimination against Operational Creditors. It ruled that the CoC&#039;s commercial wisdom is final and not subject to judicial review unless the plan violates the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or any other law. The tribunal also clarified that non-CoC members are not entitled to information on fair and liquidation value, and confirmed that the RP had properly appointed a registered valuer. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 95 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428537</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) with 100% voting, dismissing the appellant&#039;s claims of discrimination against Operational Creditors. It ruled that the CoC&#039;s commercial wisdom is final and not subject to judicial review unless the plan violates the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or any other law. The tribunal also clarified that non-CoC members are not entitled to information on fair and liquidation value, and confirmed that the RP had properly appointed a registered valuer. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order.</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=428537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>