https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782246 A resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not interfered with where the appellant, treated as a secured creditor under Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, was offered payment higher than that to secured financial creditors, satisfying Section 30(2). The valuation challenge was rejected because valuation had been conducted under Regulation 35 and accepted by the committee of creditors. The objection to assigning section 66 application proceeds to the resolution applicant was declined as a matter within the committee's commercial wisdom. The claim to premium accruing during the CIRP period was confined to the limited treatment recognised in earlier authority. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782246 A resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was not interfered with where the appellant, treated as a secured creditor under Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, was offered payment higher than that to secured financial creditors, satisfying Section 30(2). The valuation challenge was rejected because valuation had been conducted under Regulation 35 and accepted by the committee of creditors. The objection to assigning section 66 application proceeds to the resolution applicant was declined as a matter within the committee's commercial wisdom. The claim to premium accruing during the CIRP period was confined to the limited treatment recognised in earlier authority. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782246