<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1656 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464266</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding the Resolution Plan approval satisfied Section 30(2) of the IBC and finding no material irregularity in the RP&#039;s conduct or in CoC&#039;s commercial wisdom to warrant a third valuer or re-opening the process. The appellant&#039;s claim was under 10% of admitted claims, so it lacked statutory CoC representation. Citing SC authority that CoC commercial wisdom is non-justiciable unless Section 30(2) is breached, the Tribunal noted the plan was implemented two years prior and change of management effected, so no grounds existed to disturb the approved and executed plan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:49:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1656 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464266</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding the Resolution Plan approval satisfied Section 30(2) of the IBC and finding no material irregularity in the RP&#039;s conduct or in CoC&#039;s commercial wisdom to warrant a third valuer or re-opening the process. The appellant&#039;s claim was under 10% of admitted claims, so it lacked statutory CoC representation. Citing SC authority that CoC commercial wisdom is non-justiciable unless Section 30(2) is breached, the Tribunal noted the plan was implemented two years prior and change of management effected, so no grounds existed to disturb the approved and executed plan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>