<?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 339 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766954</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging resolution plan approval. Operational creditor appellant received proper notices and participated in CoC meetings, having full knowledge of CIRP proceedings. Resolution plan was approved by CoC with 97.36% vote share and subsequently approved by Adjudicating Authority beyond 330 days, though extension was properly granted. NCLAT held no material irregularities or legal contraventions occurred. Court emphasized limited judicial review scope under Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) of IBC, stating adjudicating authorities cannot substitute commercial wisdom of CoC unless plan violates express legal provisions or public interest. Appeal dismissed as no valid grounds established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 339 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766954</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging resolution plan approval. Operational creditor appellant received proper notices and participated in CoC meetings, having full knowledge of CIRP proceedings. Resolution plan was approved by CoC with 97.36% vote share and subsequently approved by Adjudicating Authority beyond 330 days, though extension was properly granted. NCLAT held no material irregularities or legal contraventions occurred. Court emphasized limited judicial review scope under Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) of IBC, stating adjudicating authorities cannot substitute commercial wisdom of CoC unless plan violates express legal provisions or public interest. Appeal dismissed as no valid grounds established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>