<?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 (11) TMI 781 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781313</link>
    <description>NCLAT set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order that interdicted a CoC-approved sale of non-core assets of the corporate debtor, holding the CoC&#039;s commercial decision to pursue an outright transfer to related entities was rational, within its exclusive domain and non-justiciable. The tribunal found directions ordering separate RPs to invite independent bids impermissibly conflated parallel CIR processes pending before NCLT, Mumbai. Regulation 29 did not bar the sale where the secured creditors on the assets were CoC members and had consented, and Regulation 36A(1A) was inapplicable as it was introduced after CoC approval. The CoC-approved sale was permitted and the appeal disposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864478" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 781 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781313</link>
      <description>NCLAT set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s order that interdicted a CoC-approved sale of non-core assets of the corporate debtor, holding the CoC&#039;s commercial decision to pursue an outright transfer to related entities was rational, within its exclusive domain and non-justiciable. The tribunal found directions ordering separate RPs to invite independent bids impermissibly conflated parallel CIR processes pending before NCLT, Mumbai. Regulation 29 did not bar the sale where the secured creditors on the assets were CoC members and had consented, and Regulation 36A(1A) was inapplicable as it was introduced after CoC approval. The CoC-approved sale was permitted and the appeal disposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>