<?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 896 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448497</link>
    <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench overturned an Adjudicating Authority&#039;s penalty order under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against assenting CoC members. The CoC had voted with 88.48% share to liquidate the corporate debtor after five meetings without exploring resolution possibilities. The NCLAT held that CoC has jurisdiction to order liquidation with 66% voting share before resolution plan confirmation, citing Section 33(2) and its explanation. The Authority erred in requiring completion of all resolution steps before liquidation decision. Referencing precedent, the tribunal found no malicious intent and ruled Section 65 inapplicable as the application was for liquidation purposes. The appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2024 22:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 896 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448497</link>
      <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench overturned an Adjudicating Authority&#039;s penalty order under Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against assenting CoC members. The CoC had voted with 88.48% share to liquidate the corporate debtor after five meetings without exploring resolution possibilities. The NCLAT held that CoC has jurisdiction to order liquidation with 66% voting share before resolution plan confirmation, citing Section 33(2) and its explanation. The Authority erred in requiring completion of all resolution steps before liquidation decision. Referencing precedent, the tribunal found no malicious intent and ruled Section 65 inapplicable as the application was for liquidation purposes. The appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>