<?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 (5) TMI 1501 - THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306523</link>
    <description>A liquidation sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern was upheld where the e-auction was conducted under the approved bid process and liquidation framework, and the bid terms required Adjudicating Authority approval before transfer. The objection that the sale was incomplete because full consideration was not paid within 90 days was rejected because the bid document governed the payment timeline. An ex-promoter found ineligible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the liquidation regulations had no locus standi to challenge the sale or insist on consideration of his settlement proposal. The confirmed sale and connected objections were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2023 20:33:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=703881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1501 - THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306523</link>
      <description>A liquidation sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern was upheld where the e-auction was conducted under the approved bid process and liquidation framework, and the bid terms required Adjudicating Authority approval before transfer. The objection that the sale was incomplete because full consideration was not paid within 90 days was rejected because the bid document governed the payment timeline. An ex-promoter found ineligible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the liquidation regulations had no locus standi to challenge the sale or insist on consideration of his settlement proposal. The confirmed sale and connected objections were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>