<?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 (4) TMI 1402 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769488</link>
    <description>A successful resolution applicant remained bound by the approved resolution plan and process memorandum, so the performance bank guarantee and earnest money were validly invoked on repeated non-implementation. Alleged non-disclosure of the transaction audit report and related materials did not make performance voidable, as the statutory disclosure duty covered only material information needed for formulation of the plan and the applicant had due diligence access. The blanket refund of the infused amount was not sustainable; only the balance, after payment of interim trade creditors&#039; dues from the preserved fixed deposit, was refundable. A standalone claim for unliquidated compensation and damages was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:22:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=817547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1402 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769488</link>
      <description>A successful resolution applicant remained bound by the approved resolution plan and process memorandum, so the performance bank guarantee and earnest money were validly invoked on repeated non-implementation. Alleged non-disclosure of the transaction audit report and related materials did not make performance voidable, as the statutory disclosure duty covered only material information needed for formulation of the plan and the applicant had due diligence access. The blanket refund of the infused amount was not sustainable; only the balance, after payment of interim trade creditors&#039; dues from the preserved fixed deposit, was refundable. A standalone claim for unliquidated compensation and damages was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>