<?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 (6) TMI 30 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771917</link>
    <description>In voluntary liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Voluntary Liquidation Process Regulations, the corporate person may appoint or replace the liquidator by the prescribed resolution process, and prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority is not required. The Tribunal distinguished this regime from liquidation following CIRP and held that, where the Board resolution and shareholder ratification had already effected replacement, a status quo direction continuing the earlier liquidator was beyond jurisdiction and could not stand. The replacement was therefore effective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:34:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 30 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771917</link>
      <description>In voluntary liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Voluntary Liquidation Process Regulations, the corporate person may appoint or replace the liquidator by the prescribed resolution process, and prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority is not required. The Tribunal distinguished this regime from liquidation following CIRP and held that, where the Board resolution and shareholder ratification had already effected replacement, a status quo direction continuing the earlier liquidator was beyond jurisdiction and could not stand. The replacement was therefore effective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>