https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448130 NCLAT held that CoC's rejection of Section 12A withdrawal proposal was arbitrary and unsustainable. Corporate debtor's shareholders offered to provide funds to repay 100% of debts to all creditors. Despite CoC initially expressing willingness to accept upon full deposit and granting time, they dissented within three days of the meeting. When entire amount was subsequently deposited pursuant to tribunal order, the major creditor refused acceptance, demonstrating malafide intent. NCLAT distinguished Section 12A from Section 29A, noting promoter ineligibility doesn't apply to withdrawal proposals. The decision to reject a proposal offering full debt repayment was deemed arbitrary. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448130 NCLAT held that CoC's rejection of Section 12A withdrawal proposal was arbitrary and unsustainable. Corporate debtor's shareholders offered to provide funds to repay 100% of debts to all creditors. Despite CoC initially expressing willingness to accept upon full deposit and granting time, they dissented within three days of the meeting. When entire amount was subsequently deposited pursuant to tribunal order, the major creditor refused acceptance, demonstrating malafide intent. NCLAT distinguished Section 12A from Section 29A, noting promoter ineligibility doesn't apply to withdrawal proposals. The decision to reject a proposal offering full debt repayment was deemed arbitrary. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 09 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448130