<?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>2021 (6) TMI 1124 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH III</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305113</link>
    <description>A resolution plan will not be disturbed where it complies with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations, including treatment of stakeholders, implementation structure, and the prescribed compliance certificate. A small dissenting minority of class creditors lacked a sustainable basis to challenge the Committee of Creditors&#039; commercial decision, and the absence of an exit route for dissenting homebuyers did not vitiate the plan. The secured dissenting creditor&#039;s demand for fuller payment also failed, as the amount offered was found to meet the statutory minimum within the plan framework. The objections were rejected and the plan was approved as binding on all stakeholders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2022 21:50:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 1124 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH III</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305113</link>
      <description>A resolution plan will not be disturbed where it complies with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP Regulations, including treatment of stakeholders, implementation structure, and the prescribed compliance certificate. A small dissenting minority of class creditors lacked a sustainable basis to challenge the Committee of Creditors&#039; commercial decision, and the absence of an exit route for dissenting homebuyers did not vitiate the plan. The secured dissenting creditor&#039;s demand for fuller payment also failed, as the amount offered was found to meet the statutory minimum within the plan framework. The objections were rejected and the plan was approved as binding on all stakeholders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>