<?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 (10) TMI 295 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759696</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed appeals challenging approval of a resolution plan submitted by an energy company. Unsuccessful resolution applicants alleged material irregularities by the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors, claiming the successful applicant was permitted to modify key commercial terms under the guise of seeking clarifications. The NCLAT held that only clarifications were sought from all resolution applicants after the CoC decision, not modifications to resolution plans. The tribunal found no sufficient grounds under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s approval of the resolution plan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2024 12:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 295 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759696</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed appeals challenging approval of a resolution plan submitted by an energy company. Unsuccessful resolution applicants alleged material irregularities by the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors, claiming the successful applicant was permitted to modify key commercial terms under the guise of seeking clarifications. The NCLAT held that only clarifications were sought from all resolution applicants after the CoC decision, not modifications to resolution plans. The tribunal found no sufficient grounds under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC to interfere with the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s approval of the resolution plan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>