https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782495 NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal, upholding NCLT's refusal to entertain the appellant's application challenging the approved resolution plan. It held that the appellant lacked locus standi, as earlier orders of NCLT and NCLAT had already negatived its right to intervene, and the appellant was neither a necessary party nor even an unsuccessful resolution applicant. The Tribunal reiterated that it cannot interfere with the CoC's commercial wisdom absent a proven violation of Section 30(2) of the IBC. Alleged information gaps and subsequent sale of certain units did not vitiate the plan, particularly since the successful resolution applicant had accepted the corresponding liabilities. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:50:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782495 NCLAT (Chennai) dismissed the appeal, upholding NCLT's refusal to entertain the appellant's application challenging the approved resolution plan. It held that the appellant lacked locus standi, as earlier orders of NCLT and NCLAT had already negatived its right to intervene, and the appellant was neither a necessary party nor even an unsuccessful resolution applicant. The Tribunal reiterated that it cannot interfere with the CoC's commercial wisdom absent a proven violation of Section 30(2) of the IBC. Alleged information gaps and subsequent sale of certain units did not vitiate the plan, particularly since the successful resolution applicant had accepted the corresponding liabilities. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 13 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782495