<?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 (8) TMI 868 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776680</link>
    <description>The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order directing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. It clarified that under Section 30(4) of the IBC, as amended, approval of a Resolution Plan requires at least 66% of the voting share of all Financial Creditors, including those voting for, against, or abstaining. The percentage is computed on the total voting share of all Financial Creditors, not just those present or voting. The omission of Regulation 2(1)(f) does not affect this interpretation. The appellant&#039;s contention to vary the 66% threshold based on creditor attendance was rejected. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liquidation order after prolonged pendency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2025 10:11:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=843860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 868 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776680</link>
      <description>The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order directing liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. It clarified that under Section 30(4) of the IBC, as amended, approval of a Resolution Plan requires at least 66% of the voting share of all Financial Creditors, including those voting for, against, or abstaining. The percentage is computed on the total voting share of all Financial Creditors, not just those present or voting. The omission of Regulation 2(1)(f) does not affect this interpretation. The appellant&#039;s contention to vary the 66% threshold based on creditor attendance was rejected. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liquidation order after prolonged pendency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>