https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778984 NCLAT (LB) allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider limited compliance issues in the resolution plan under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Regulation 36B(4A). The tribunal found deficiencies - non-deposit of performance security, failure to disclose source of funds, and unmet feasibility/viability under Section 30(4) - and held the CoC had improperly voted on the entire plan despite changing membership. Applying SC precedents (Ebix Singapore, Prabhjit Singh), NCLAT required targeted reexamination and re-voting on the specific queries rather than wholesale reconsideration, and remitted the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778984 NCLAT (LB) allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider limited compliance issues in the resolution plan under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Regulation 36B(4A). The tribunal found deficiencies - non-deposit of performance security, failure to disclose source of funds, and unmet feasibility/viability under Section 30(4) - and held the CoC had improperly voted on the entire plan despite changing membership. Applying SC precedents (Ebix Singapore, Prabhjit Singh), NCLAT required targeted reexamination and re-voting on the specific queries rather than wholesale reconsideration, and remitted the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778984