<?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 (6) TMI 308 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753701</link>
    <description>An approved resolution plan binds all creditors, including statutory authorities, and claims not included in the plan stand extinguished, leaving the successful resolution applicant entitled to a clean slate. Pre-effective-date electricity dues could not be pursued against the applicant or used to deny a new connection when the authority had notice of the insolvency process but failed to file a claim. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent recovery mechanisms under other laws. The writ petition was also treated as maintainable because the dispute concerned the legal effect of the approved plan and coercive action contrary to it, rather than a mere alternative-remedy objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2024 09:04:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755741" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 308 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753701</link>
      <description>An approved resolution plan binds all creditors, including statutory authorities, and claims not included in the plan stand extinguished, leaving the successful resolution applicant entitled to a clean slate. Pre-effective-date electricity dues could not be pursued against the applicant or used to deny a new connection when the authority had notice of the insolvency process but failed to file a claim. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides inconsistent recovery mechanisms under other laws. The writ petition was also treated as maintainable because the dispute concerned the legal effect of the approved plan and coercive action contrary to it, rather than a mere alternative-remedy objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>