https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313701 NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a resolution plan approved for DHFL where fixed deposit holders contested their treatment as ordinary creditors rather than receiving preferential status. The tribunal held that FD holders failed to establish their deposits were held in trust, making them creditors rather than beneficiaries. Under IBC's non-obstante clause in Section 238, the Code prevails over NHB Act and RBI Act provisions. The relationship between DHFL and FD holders was debtor-creditor, not trustee-beneficiary. The Committee of Creditors' commercial decision approving the resolution plan was binding on all stakeholders including dissenting creditors. Neither NHB Act nor RBI Act guarantees full repayment of deposits, and IBC operates as a complete code during insolvency proceedings. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:29:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313701 NCLAT dismissed an appeal challenging a resolution plan approved for DHFL where fixed deposit holders contested their treatment as ordinary creditors rather than receiving preferential status. The tribunal held that FD holders failed to establish their deposits were held in trust, making them creditors rather than beneficiaries. Under IBC's non-obstante clause in Section 238, the Code prevails over NHB Act and RBI Act provisions. The relationship between DHFL and FD holders was debtor-creditor, not trustee-beneficiary. The Committee of Creditors' commercial decision approving the resolution plan was binding on all stakeholders including dissenting creditors. Neither NHB Act nor RBI Act guarantees full repayment of deposits, and IBC operates as a complete code during insolvency proceedings. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313701