<?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 (12) TMI 128 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446444</link>
    <description>NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeals challenging CoC meeting notice and resolution plan approval. Appellant claimed violations of IBBI Regulations 21, 24, and 26 regarding inadequate notice for 11th CoC meeting and e-voting procedures. Tribunal found no prejudice to appellant&#039;s legal rights despite timing changes, as appellant chose not to join the meeting link. Voting records showed Regulation 26 compliance, and RP properly presented resolution plans per Section 25(2) and Regulation 21. Distinguished Vijayakumar Jain SC precedent, noting appellant had access to resolution plan information and made no requests for copies. Appeals dismissed finding no illegality in adjudicating authority&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2023 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 128 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446444</link>
      <description>NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeals challenging CoC meeting notice and resolution plan approval. Appellant claimed violations of IBBI Regulations 21, 24, and 26 regarding inadequate notice for 11th CoC meeting and e-voting procedures. Tribunal found no prejudice to appellant&#039;s legal rights despite timing changes, as appellant chose not to join the meeting link. Voting records showed Regulation 26 compliance, and RP properly presented resolution plans per Section 25(2) and Regulation 21. Distinguished Vijayakumar Jain SC precedent, noting appellant had access to resolution plan information and made no requests for copies. Appeals dismissed finding no illegality in adjudicating authority&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>