<?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>NCLAT upheld re-verification of Pegasus&#039;s claim by RP &amp; approval of Resolution Plan sans payment to appellant promoter.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79404</link>
    <description>The NCLAT held that the Supreme Court&#039;s clarification in M/S. TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED &amp; ANR. VERSUS MR. ANISH NIRANJAN NANAVATY &amp; ANR. stated that reworking/verification of claims would not impact the Resolution Plan or its implementation. The re-verification of Pegasus&#039;s claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) at 14.85%, upon Pegasus&#039;s request, was valid, and the Adjudicating Authority correctly approved it. The Appellant, a shareholder and promoter, was not proposed any amount in the Resolution Plan. The NCLAT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s approval of the Resolution Plan in accordance with the statutory scheme and dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:17:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:17:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>NCLAT upheld re-verification of Pegasus&#039;s claim by RP &amp; approval of Resolution Plan sans payment to appellant promoter.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79404</link>
      <description>The NCLAT held that the Supreme Court&#039;s clarification in M/S. TULIP STAR HOTELS LIMITED &amp; ANR. VERSUS MR. ANISH NIRANJAN NANAVATY &amp; ANR. stated that reworking/verification of claims would not impact the Resolution Plan or its implementation. The re-verification of Pegasus&#039;s claim by the Resolution Professional (RP) at 14.85%, upon Pegasus&#039;s request, was valid, and the Adjudicating Authority correctly approved it. The Appellant, a shareholder and promoter, was not proposed any amount in the Resolution Plan. The NCLAT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s approval of the Resolution Plan in accordance with the statutory scheme and dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:17:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>