https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311524 The NCLT Bengaluru rejected a resolution plan under Section 31(2) read with Section 30(2)(e) of IBC, 2016. Despite the Resolution Professional confirming no outstanding debts to government authorities and no employee claims after two years of CIRP initiation, and the resolution applicant proposing 100% payment of statutory dues, the Tribunal found the successful resolution applicants ineligible under Section 29A read with Section 240A of IBC. The MSME UDYAM Certificate obtained post-CIRP initiation was deemed irrelevant, rendering the resolution plan legally untenable. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Dec 2023 08:30:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311524 The NCLT Bengaluru rejected a resolution plan under Section 31(2) read with Section 30(2)(e) of IBC, 2016. Despite the Resolution Professional confirming no outstanding debts to government authorities and no employee claims after two years of CIRP initiation, and the resolution applicant proposing 100% payment of statutory dues, the Tribunal found the successful resolution applicants ineligible under Section 29A read with Section 240A of IBC. The MSME UDYAM Certificate obtained post-CIRP initiation was deemed irrelevant, rendering the resolution plan legally untenable. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311524