<?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 (3) TMI 755 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788000</link>
    <description>Induction of a strategic investor into a resolution applicant&#039;s consortium does not breach the CIRP Regulations or invalidate a resolution plan where the investor&#039;s identity is disclosed, eligibility under Section 29A is verified, and the revised plan and consortium composition are considered and approved by the CoC. Regulation 39&#039;s requirement for vetted participants is satisfied through recorded due diligence and CoC deliberation. Non-furnishing allegations do not establish material irregularity where erstwhile directors attended plan presentations and revised plans were circulated before voting. Challenge-process modifications outside prescribed rules, acquiescence through bid-bond refund, and the CoC&#039;s assessment of feasibility, viability and implementability do not justify replacing the CoC&#039;s commercial judgment absent a specific Section 30(2) contravention or proven irregularity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 18:17:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 755 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788000</link>
      <description>Induction of a strategic investor into a resolution applicant&#039;s consortium does not breach the CIRP Regulations or invalidate a resolution plan where the investor&#039;s identity is disclosed, eligibility under Section 29A is verified, and the revised plan and consortium composition are considered and approved by the CoC. Regulation 39&#039;s requirement for vetted participants is satisfied through recorded due diligence and CoC deliberation. Non-furnishing allegations do not establish material irregularity where erstwhile directors attended plan presentations and revised plans were circulated before voting. Challenge-process modifications outside prescribed rules, acquiescence through bid-bond refund, and the CoC&#039;s assessment of feasibility, viability and implementability do not justify replacing the CoC&#039;s commercial judgment absent a specific Section 30(2) contravention or proven irregularity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>