<?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>2023 (11) TMI 567 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445676</link>
    <description>An approved acquisition plan may expressly provide for the successful auction purchaser to pursue pending avoidance proceedings originally filed by the resolution professional, and substitution is permissible where that framework has attained finality. The objection that only the resolution professional or liquidator can prosecute such proceedings was rejected because the avoidance application forms part of the liquidation estate and the concluded plan governed the continuation of the claim. A brief consequential order allowing substitution was also not invalid merely for want of elaborate reasons where the basis of the decision was ascertainable from the record. No interference was warranted, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 567 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445676</link>
      <description>An approved acquisition plan may expressly provide for the successful auction purchaser to pursue pending avoidance proceedings originally filed by the resolution professional, and substitution is permissible where that framework has attained finality. The objection that only the resolution professional or liquidator can prosecute such proceedings was rejected because the avoidance application forms part of the liquidation estate and the concluded plan governed the continuation of the claim. A brief consequential order allowing substitution was also not invalid merely for want of elaborate reasons where the basis of the decision was ascertainable from the record. No interference was warranted, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>