<?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 1804 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782336</link>
    <description>Regulation 29 permits sale of unencumbered assets in CIRP only within the statutory framework, and a bare price-discovery exercise cannot substitute for that process. The text notes that the Committee of Creditors&#039; decision was not interfered with because the prescribed procedure under Regulation 28 had been complied with, one investment was encumbered, and the other was unencumbered. It further states that sale of the encumbered investment could proceed only after removal of encumbrances, while the unencumbered asset could continue through the regulation-based process. The challenge was rejected as inconsistent with value maximisation and the CIRP Regulations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1804 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782336</link>
      <description>Regulation 29 permits sale of unencumbered assets in CIRP only within the statutory framework, and a bare price-discovery exercise cannot substitute for that process. The text notes that the Committee of Creditors&#039; decision was not interfered with because the prescribed procedure under Regulation 28 had been complied with, one investment was encumbered, and the other was unencumbered. It further states that sale of the encumbered investment could proceed only after removal of encumbrances, while the unencumbered asset could continue through the regulation-based process. The challenge was rejected as inconsistent with value maximisation and the CIRP Regulations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>