<?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 (7) TMI 1549 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775481</link>
    <description>Adverse observations against the erstwhile resolution professional concerning a third-party settlement, delay in seeking fresh valuation, and alleged indifference to duties were held unsupported by the record and directed to be expunged. The settlement with M/s Shomit Finance Limited had been placed before the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to committee of creditors approval, so criticism of the professional&#039;s role in bringing it on record could not stand. Earlier valuation reports were already on file when the appellant took charge, and the pending plan approval did not justify an inference of dereliction from the later request for fresh valuation. Materials also showed prior contractor engagement and committee consideration of its work, making the adverse inference on that issue unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:39:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1549 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775481</link>
      <description>Adverse observations against the erstwhile resolution professional concerning a third-party settlement, delay in seeking fresh valuation, and alleged indifference to duties were held unsupported by the record and directed to be expunged. The settlement with M/s Shomit Finance Limited had been placed before the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to committee of creditors approval, so criticism of the professional&#039;s role in bringing it on record could not stand. Earlier valuation reports were already on file when the appellant took charge, and the pending plan approval did not justify an inference of dereliction from the later request for fresh valuation. Materials also showed prior contractor engagement and committee consideration of its work, making the adverse inference on that issue unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>