https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445835 The State Tax Department's claim was treated as that of an operational creditor, and the approved resolution plan was upheld because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires only the minimum distribution available to such a creditor in liquidation under the waterfall mechanism. The earlier Rainbow Papers ruling was held distinguishable, since the first-charge provision relied on there operated in a different context, while the provision invoked here was expressly subject to central insolvency law and the insolvency waterfall. On that basis, the plan did not violate the statutory distribution framework, and the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Nov 2023 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445835 The State Tax Department's claim was treated as that of an operational creditor, and the approved resolution plan was upheld because the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code requires only the minimum distribution available to such a creditor in liquidation under the waterfall mechanism. The earlier Rainbow Papers ruling was held distinguishable, since the first-charge provision relied on there operated in a different context, while the provision invoked here was expressly subject to central insolvency law and the insolvency waterfall. On that basis, the plan did not violate the statutory distribution framework, and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445835