<?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>Appeal allowed; matter remanded for fresh consideration on specific defects and CoC to re-evaluate under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and 30(4)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92864</link>
    <description>NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed; matter remanded for fresh consideration on specific defects and CoC to re-evaluate under Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and 30(4)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92864</link>
      <description>NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>