https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439433 An Asset Reconstruction Company was held not to require prior RBI approval merely to participate as a resolution co-applicant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where the proposed activities were not prohibited by the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 238 of the Code prevails over inconsistent SARFAESI provisions and that the Adjudicating Authority should not have rejected the resolution plan solely on the basis of Section 10(2) of SARFAESI. It also recorded that the Committee of Creditors had approved the plan by an overwhelming majority and that no material irregularity justified interference. As the related order rejecting the plan and directing liquidation had already been set aside, the present appeal was dismissed as infructuous. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jun 2023 09:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439433 An Asset Reconstruction Company was held not to require prior RBI approval merely to participate as a resolution co-applicant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where the proposed activities were not prohibited by the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal noted that Section 238 of the Code prevails over inconsistent SARFAESI provisions and that the Adjudicating Authority should not have rejected the resolution plan solely on the basis of Section 10(2) of SARFAESI. It also recorded that the Committee of Creditors had approved the plan by an overwhelming majority and that no material irregularity justified interference. As the related order rejecting the plan and directing liquidation had already been set aside, the present appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 21 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439433