https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79075 The case involves the Appellant's failure to implement a Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the question of whether the Appellant's inability to infuse share capital due to the company's inactive status absolves them from their obligations. The NCLAT held that the Appellant's offer to deposit the remaining amount into an Escrow Account does not excuse their failure to adhere to the Resolution Plan timelines. The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to grant waivers and the SRA's mindset of conditional plan implementation were considered. As the Resolution Plan was not implemented, liquidation was deemed necessary under the I&B Code. The Appellant's argument regarding fund infusion hindrance was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:15:46 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:15:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79075 The case involves the Appellant's failure to implement a Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the question of whether the Appellant's inability to infuse share capital due to the company's inactive status absolves them from their obligations. The NCLAT held that the Appellant's offer to deposit the remaining amount into an Escrow Account does not excuse their failure to adhere to the Resolution Plan timelines. The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to grant waivers and the SRA's mindset of conditional plan implementation were considered. As the Resolution Plan was not implemented, liquidation was deemed necessary under the I&B Code. The Appellant's argument regarding fund infusion hindrance was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Highlights Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:15:46 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79075