<?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>Appellant materially breached approved resolution plan by failing upfront payment and instalments, causing plan non-implementation</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92650</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal&#039;s order that the appellant materially breached the approved resolution plan by failing to pay the required upfront amount and subsequent instalments, resulting in non-implementation. The CoC had earlier contemplated liquidation but, upon the appellant&#039;s request, permitted submission of a fresh resolution plan which later secured 100% CoC approval. The record established the appellant lacked funds to meet the upfront fee, sought extensions twice, yet did not remit any amount within stipulated timelines. Given the appellant&#039;s repeated default and the reasoned findings below, the appellate challenge was devoid of merit and the impugned order refusing relief was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=851675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant materially breached approved resolution plan by failing upfront payment and instalments, causing plan non-implementation</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92650</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal&#039;s order that the appellant materially breached the approved resolution plan by failing to pay the required upfront amount and subsequent instalments, resulting in non-implementation. The CoC had earlier contemplated liquidation but, upon the appellant&#039;s request, permitted submission of a fresh resolution plan which later secured 100% CoC approval. The record established the appellant lacked funds to meet the upfront fee, sought extensions twice, yet did not remit any amount within stipulated timelines. Given the appellant&#039;s repeated default and the reasoned findings below, the appellate challenge was devoid of merit and the impugned order refusing relief was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>