https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767588 NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appeal challenging adjudicating authority's interpretation of Clause 21 in resolution plan. Court held that dissenting financial creditor was entitled to receive liquidation value upfront before payments to assenting creditors, as specifically contemplated in the resolution plan. The dissenting creditor had opted for 15% liquidation value rather than 100% payment over 10 years. NCLAT distinguished Puro Natural Sugars JV case, finding it inapplicable to present facts where payment mechanism was clearly defined in Clause 21. Adjudicating authority's order directing priority payment to dissenting creditor was upheld as correct interpretation of resolution plan terms. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767588 NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed appeal challenging adjudicating authority's interpretation of Clause 21 in resolution plan. Court held that dissenting financial creditor was entitled to receive liquidation value upfront before payments to assenting creditors, as specifically contemplated in the resolution plan. The dissenting creditor had opted for 15% liquidation value rather than 100% payment over 10 years. NCLAT distinguished Puro Natural Sugars JV case, finding it inapplicable to present facts where payment mechanism was clearly defined in Clause 21. Adjudicating authority's order directing priority payment to dissenting creditor was upheld as correct interpretation of resolution plan terms. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767588