https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86622 The NCLAT held that the CoC acted properly in rejecting Respondent No. 1's late resolution plan submission. After extending the submission deadline from 05.02.2024 to 14.02.2024 (explicitly communicated as the final extension), the CoC was justified in not considering Respondent's plan received after this date. Following this decision, the CoC conducted a challenge process where the appellant was declared H-1 bidder. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority erred in interfering with the CoC's commercial wisdom, as the CoC's actions aligned with Regulation 36B(6) of the IBBI Regulations, which requires committee approval for timeline extensions. The appeal was accordingly allowed, reversing the Adjudicating Authority's direction to the CoC to consider the late submission. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:28 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86622 The NCLAT held that the CoC acted properly in rejecting Respondent No. 1's late resolution plan submission. After extending the submission deadline from 05.02.2024 to 14.02.2024 (explicitly communicated as the final extension), the CoC was justified in not considering Respondent's plan received after this date. Following this decision, the CoC conducted a challenge process where the appellant was declared H-1 bidder. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority erred in interfering with the CoC's commercial wisdom, as the CoC's actions aligned with Regulation 36B(6) of the IBBI Regulations, which requires committee approval for timeline extensions. The appeal was accordingly allowed, reversing the Adjudicating Authority's direction to the CoC to consider the late submission. Highlights IBC Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86622