<?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>2024 (1) TMI 44 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447645</link>
    <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench held that operational creditors, being mere participants and not members of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), have no right to obtain copies of information memoranda. The tribunal distinguished between members (financial creditors under Section 21(2)) and participants, noting that the Code and Regulations specifically provide for information memoranda to be supplied only to CoC members and resolution applicants under Section 29(2) and Regulation 36. The NCLAT found the lower court&#039;s reasoning erroneous and set aside the order, clarifying that legislative silence regarding participants indicates intentional exclusion from receiving such documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 44 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447645</link>
      <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench held that operational creditors, being mere participants and not members of the Committee of Creditors (CoC), have no right to obtain copies of information memoranda. The tribunal distinguished between members (financial creditors under Section 21(2)) and participants, noting that the Code and Regulations specifically provide for information memoranda to be supplied only to CoC members and resolution applicants under Section 29(2) and Regulation 36. The NCLAT found the lower court&#039;s reasoning erroneous and set aside the order, clarifying that legislative silence regarding participants indicates intentional exclusion from receiving such documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>