<?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 1220 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770948</link>
    <description>A resolution plan under the insolvency framework was examined against competition-clearance requirements, debt assignment structures, treatment of disputed land, and a later revised offer. The plan was said to fall within the competition exemption because the corporate debtor&#039;s assets and turnover were below the prescribed threshold, so prior CCI approval was not needed. Assignment of unsustainable debt and foreign lender debt was treated as permissible within the plan structure, with approvals under other laws capable of being addressed after plan approval. The disputed Noida project land was only acknowledged as a pending dispute, and the committee of creditors was not bound to reopen the process for a later higher offer once voting had commenced and the requisite majority was obtained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2025 08:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1220 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770948</link>
      <description>A resolution plan under the insolvency framework was examined against competition-clearance requirements, debt assignment structures, treatment of disputed land, and a later revised offer. The plan was said to fall within the competition exemption because the corporate debtor&#039;s assets and turnover were below the prescribed threshold, so prior CCI approval was not needed. Assignment of unsustainable debt and foreign lender debt was treated as permissible within the plan structure, with approvals under other laws capable of being addressed after plan approval. The disputed Noida project land was only acknowledged as a pending dispute, and the committee of creditors was not bound to reopen the process for a later higher offer once voting had commenced and the requisite majority was obtained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>