<?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 (5) TMI 409 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770137</link>
    <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal concerning submission of resolution plans after recall of an earlier approved plan due to forged bank guarantee. The appellant sought 30 days under Regulation 36B(5) for plan submission, but the tribunal held this was not a fresh Form-G process requiring mandatory 30-day period. The CoC had validly set timeline of 03.02.2025 for existing resolution applicants to submit plans. The appellant failed to submit within CoC&#039;s extended deadline and was not entitled to additional time under the regulations. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the extension application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 409 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770137</link>
      <description>The NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed an appeal concerning submission of resolution plans after recall of an earlier approved plan due to forged bank guarantee. The appellant sought 30 days under Regulation 36B(5) for plan submission, but the tribunal held this was not a fresh Form-G process requiring mandatory 30-day period. The CoC had validly set timeline of 03.02.2025 for existing resolution applicants to submit plans. The appellant failed to submit within CoC&#039;s extended deadline and was not entitled to additional time under the regulations. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the extension application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>