<?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>2026 (2) TMI 440 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786245</link>
    <description>Approval of a resolution plan under insolvency law was maintained on merits: the adjudicating authority found the Committee of Creditors&#039; commercial wisdom valid and the Resolution Professional&#039;s conduct did not vitiate approval, so the plan stands and the appeal was dismissed. The termination notice for a lease was set aside and the lease revived, restoring the corporate debtor&#039;s interest in the asset. The Successful Resolution Applicant remains bound by its submitted plan and cannot withdraw from its obligations. Requests for additional undertakings from the lessor were refused and alleged alterations to the approved plan were not substantiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 440 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786245</link>
      <description>Approval of a resolution plan under insolvency law was maintained on merits: the adjudicating authority found the Committee of Creditors&#039; commercial wisdom valid and the Resolution Professional&#039;s conduct did not vitiate approval, so the plan stands and the appeal was dismissed. The termination notice for a lease was set aside and the lease revived, restoring the corporate debtor&#039;s interest in the asset. The Successful Resolution Applicant remains bound by its submitted plan and cannot withdraw from its obligations. Requests for additional undertakings from the lessor were refused and alleged alterations to the approved plan were not substantiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>