https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438275 The Supreme Court held that the Resolution Applicant was ineligible under Section 29A but did not interfere with the approval of the Resolution Plan due to the ongoing nature of the Corporate Debtor. The Court emphasized the importance of implementing the Plan for the benefit of shareholders, employees, and ongoing projects. The exclusion of the period from 18.04.2018 to 18.01.2022 from the implementation timeline was approved due to pending litigation. The Court upheld directions to SBI for Plan implementation and dismissed SBI's appeal, stressing the obligation of all stakeholders to ensure Plan execution. en-us Tue, 23 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 May 2023 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438275 The Supreme Court held that the Resolution Applicant was ineligible under Section 29A but did not interfere with the approval of the Resolution Plan due to the ongoing nature of the Corporate Debtor. The Court emphasized the importance of implementing the Plan for the benefit of shareholders, employees, and ongoing projects. The exclusion of the period from 18.04.2018 to 18.01.2022 from the implementation timeline was approved due to pending litigation. The Court upheld directions to SBI for Plan implementation and dismissed SBI's appeal, stressing the obligation of all stakeholders to ensure Plan execution. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 23 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438275