<?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 431 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772318</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned within the insolvency appellate limitation framework. The tribunal then held that a liquidation order could be clarified or modified where the requested relief merely gave effect to a stakeholder-approved commercial decision and did not prejudice the parties&#039; rights or liabilities. On the record, including the committee resolution and the respondents&#039; consensus, the earlier liquidation order was treated as reflecting a sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern, and the refusal to clarify was set aside. The clarification was therefore restored without altering the substantive rights of the parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 08:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 431 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772318</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned within the insolvency appellate limitation framework. The tribunal then held that a liquidation order could be clarified or modified where the requested relief merely gave effect to a stakeholder-approved commercial decision and did not prejudice the parties&#039; rights or liabilities. On the record, including the committee resolution and the respondents&#039; consensus, the earlier liquidation order was treated as reflecting a sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern, and the refusal to clarify was set aside. The clarification was therefore restored without altering the substantive rights of the parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>