<?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 (3) TMI 1619 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467182</link>
    <description>A composite sale of connected mortgaged property was treated as permissible where it was necessary for value maximisation and the property was integrally linked to the corporate debtor&#039;s business premises and access. The commentary notes that, after two unsuccessful rounds of expressions of interest produced no viable resolution plan, the Committee of Creditors approved liquidation by overwhelming majority. It also records that interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not viewed as preventing the CIRP or the liquidation decision. The stated principle is that liquidation based on commercial wisdom will not ordinarily be interfered with merely because promoter or guarantor property forms part of a connected sale structure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 08:51:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1619 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467182</link>
      <description>A composite sale of connected mortgaged property was treated as permissible where it was necessary for value maximisation and the property was integrally linked to the corporate debtor&#039;s business premises and access. The commentary notes that, after two unsuccessful rounds of expressions of interest produced no viable resolution plan, the Committee of Creditors approved liquidation by overwhelming majority. It also records that interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was not viewed as preventing the CIRP or the liquidation decision. The stated principle is that liquidation based on commercial wisdom will not ordinarily be interfered with merely because promoter or guarantor property forms part of a connected sale structure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>