https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776449 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that the appellant, having lost consortium status due to a partner's withdrawal, lacked locus to challenge the ineligibility decision. The appellant alone did not meet the net worth criteria under the RFRP, and no provision allowed replacing a consortium partner. The claim of an irrevocable POA was rejected, referencing SC precedent that a POA is not irrevocable unless coupled with interest. The tribunal upheld the NCLT's dismissal on locus grounds, noting the appellant could not substitute the original consortium partner after the shortlisting deadline. However, the appeal was allowed in part concerning another PRA that failed to meet Section 29A requirements and whose impugned order was non-speaking. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 20:51:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776449 The NCLAT dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that the appellant, having lost consortium status due to a partner's withdrawal, lacked locus to challenge the ineligibility decision. The appellant alone did not meet the net worth criteria under the RFRP, and no provision allowed replacing a consortium partner. The claim of an irrevocable POA was rejected, referencing SC precedent that a POA is not irrevocable unless coupled with interest. The tribunal upheld the NCLT's dismissal on locus grounds, noting the appellant could not substitute the original consortium partner after the shortlisting deadline. However, the appeal was allowed in part concerning another PRA that failed to meet Section 29A requirements and whose impugned order was non-speaking. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776449