<?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 (2) TMI 92 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448941</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a resolution plan by the third respondent. The tribunal held that Committee of Creditors&#039; approval of resolution plans reflects commercial wisdom and can only be challenged on limited grounds when non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code is demonstrated. The appellant failed to establish any non-compliance with Section 30(2). The tribunal referenced precedent from AJR INFRA case confirming the plan met all mandatory requirements and had been previously upheld. Finding no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order, the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2024 16:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 92 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448941</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a resolution plan by the third respondent. The tribunal held that Committee of Creditors&#039; approval of resolution plans reflects commercial wisdom and can only be challenged on limited grounds when non-compliance with Section 30(2) of the Code is demonstrated. The appellant failed to establish any non-compliance with Section 30(2). The tribunal referenced precedent from AJR INFRA case confirming the plan met all mandatory requirements and had been previously upheld. Finding no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order, the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>