https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754976 Valuation conducted by duly appointed registered valuers under the CIRP framework, and accepted by the Committee of Creditors, could not be reopened on the basis of a contrary market view or alleged pre-CIRP irregularities; the challenge to undervaluation therefore failed. Eligibility of a resolution applicant under Section 29A(f) had to be assessed as on the date of submission of the resolution plan, and stayed or set-aside restraints did not establish ineligibility on the facts recorded; that challenge also failed. Once the plan received CoC approval, scrutiny remained confined to compliance with Section 30(2), and the approved resolution plan was upheld. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754976 Valuation conducted by duly appointed registered valuers under the CIRP framework, and accepted by the Committee of Creditors, could not be reopened on the basis of a contrary market view or alleged pre-CIRP irregularities; the challenge to undervaluation therefore failed. Eligibility of a resolution applicant under Section 29A(f) had to be assessed as on the date of submission of the resolution plan, and stayed or set-aside restraints did not establish ineligibility on the facts recorded; that challenge also failed. Once the plan received CoC approval, scrutiny remained confined to compliance with Section 30(2), and the approved resolution plan was upheld. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754976