<?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>2025 (3) TMI 68 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766683</link>
    <description>NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appeal challenging resolution plan approval. CoC approved plan with 86.67% vote shares within 330-day CIRP period on 31.01.2023, though Adjudicating Authority approved it later on 14.05.2024. Court held Section 30(2)(b) compliance satisfied as dissenting financial creditors (13.44% vote share) received Rs.1.5 crore payout against Rs.10.94 crore admitted claims. Appellant&#039;s challenge regarding homebuyers receiving units without haircuts rejected. Court emphasized limited jurisdiction to interfere with resolution plan approval, finding no statutory non-compliance. Plan&#039;s timely CoC approval and application filing before 330-day expiry validated approval despite later formal order date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:22:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 68 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766683</link>
      <description>NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appeal challenging resolution plan approval. CoC approved plan with 86.67% vote shares within 330-day CIRP period on 31.01.2023, though Adjudicating Authority approved it later on 14.05.2024. Court held Section 30(2)(b) compliance satisfied as dissenting financial creditors (13.44% vote share) received Rs.1.5 crore payout against Rs.10.94 crore admitted claims. Appellant&#039;s challenge regarding homebuyers receiving units without haircuts rejected. Court emphasized limited jurisdiction to interfere with resolution plan approval, finding no statutory non-compliance. Plan&#039;s timely CoC approval and application filing before 330-day expiry validated approval despite later formal order date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>