<?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 (7) TMI 1361 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756141</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC set aside a government decision barring a company from coal mine auctions due to outstanding dues from its previous management. The court held that following NCLT approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all claims not properly submitted or rejected by the Resolution Professional were legally extinguished, including statutory dues to the Central Government. The court emphasized that approved resolution plans are binding on all stakeholders per Section 31(1) IBC, and citing Supreme Court precedent, ruled that resolution applicants should not face unforeseen claims post-approval as this would undermine the rehabilitative purpose of insolvency proceedings and deter future investment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 10:02:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1361 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756141</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC set aside a government decision barring a company from coal mine auctions due to outstanding dues from its previous management. The court held that following NCLT approval of the resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, all claims not properly submitted or rejected by the Resolution Professional were legally extinguished, including statutory dues to the Central Government. The court emphasized that approved resolution plans are binding on all stakeholders per Section 31(1) IBC, and citing Supreme Court precedent, ruled that resolution applicants should not face unforeseen claims post-approval as this would undermine the rehabilitative purpose of insolvency proceedings and deter future investment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>