https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448131 NCLAT Principal Bench held that former promoters/directors are not per se disqualified from submitting resolution plans under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal ruled that mere status as a former promoter/director does not create automatic ineligibility unless specific disqualification clauses (a) to (g) under Section 29A apply. The adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the resolution plan solely based on the applicant's past role as promoter/director until 2018. The SC precedent in Hari Babu Thota case confirmed no blanket disqualification exists. Appeal was allowed, and the rejection order was set aside. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448131 NCLAT Principal Bench held that former promoters/directors are not per se disqualified from submitting resolution plans under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The tribunal ruled that mere status as a former promoter/director does not create automatic ineligibility unless specific disqualification clauses (a) to (g) under Section 29A apply. The adjudicating authority erred in rejecting the resolution plan solely based on the applicant's past role as promoter/director until 2018. The SC precedent in Hari Babu Thota case confirmed no blanket disqualification exists. Appeal was allowed, and the rejection order was set aside. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448131