<?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 (8) TMI 1155 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757451</link>
    <description>Approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds all creditors and extinguishes claims not included in the plan, including inchoate claims that had already arisen before approval. A counter claim filed before plan approval could therefore be rejected at the threshold, and characterising part of it as future losses did not preserve it, because the relevant date is when the claim arises, not when damages are finally quantified. An earlier order on Section 16 jurisdiction did not operate as res judicata, since it addressed the CIRP moratorium under Section 14 and not the later legal effect of plan approval. The arbitral award dismissing the counter claim was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2024 13:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1155 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757451</link>
      <description>Approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds all creditors and extinguishes claims not included in the plan, including inchoate claims that had already arisen before approval. A counter claim filed before plan approval could therefore be rejected at the threshold, and characterising part of it as future losses did not preserve it, because the relevant date is when the claim arises, not when damages are finally quantified. An earlier order on Section 16 jurisdiction did not operate as res judicata, since it addressed the CIRP moratorium under Section 14 and not the later legal effect of plan approval. The arbitral award dismissing the counter claim was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>