https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95395 After the CoC approved a resolution plan with 100% voting and the approval application was pending, the subsequently reconstituted CoC lacked jurisdiction to withdraw the plan, cancel the LoI, or seek remand for reconsideration; the later resolutions were unauthorised and contrary to CIRP Regulations and could not be relied upon, so the plan had to be considered for approval in accordance with law. On compliance with section 30(2)(b) IBC, only operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors are statutorily assured liquidation-value minimum; other creditors are not mandatorily payable, and the secured creditor's claim was addressed in the plan and had to be paid as provided, so the plan was not non-compliant. Appeal allowed. - NCLAT en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95395 After the CoC approved a resolution plan with 100% voting and the approval application was pending, the subsequently reconstituted CoC lacked jurisdiction to withdraw the plan, cancel the LoI, or seek remand for reconsideration; the later resolutions were unauthorised and contrary to CIRP Regulations and could not be relied upon, so the plan had to be considered for approval in accordance with law. On compliance with section 30(2)(b) IBC, only operational creditors and dissenting financial creditors are statutorily assured liquidation-value minimum; other creditors are not mandatorily payable, and the secured creditor's claim was addressed in the plan and had to be paid as provided, so the plan was not non-compliant. Appeal allowed. - NCLAT Highlights IBC Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95395