<?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 294 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759695</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed an application challenging the Committee of Creditors&#039; rejection of a settlement proposal during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The tribunal held that a revised settlement proposal was pending consideration by the CoC, which must be evaluated according to law. The CoC may consider both resolution plans and settlement proposals simultaneously. The respondent need not be heard unless the CoC decides to call for negotiations. Since a revised settlement proposal was submitted, no additional evidence was required unless requested by the CoC or Interim Resolution Professional. The CIRP remained active as the SC had not stayed proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:08:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 294 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759695</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed an application challenging the Committee of Creditors&#039; rejection of a settlement proposal during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The tribunal held that a revised settlement proposal was pending consideration by the CoC, which must be evaluated according to law. The CoC may consider both resolution plans and settlement proposals simultaneously. The respondent need not be heard unless the CoC decides to call for negotiations. Since a revised settlement proposal was submitted, no additional evidence was required unless requested by the CoC or Interim Resolution Professional. The CIRP remained active as the SC had not stayed proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>