<?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 1513 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788758</link>
    <description>Adverse remarks against a resolution professional must rest on the record and on established duties. Remarks on delayed filing of extension and liquidation applications, including late submission of hard copies, were supported by the record and were upheld. By contrast, criticism that the resolution professional was lax in filing progress reports was unsustainable because no specific reporting direction was shown, and the allegation of canvassing for a particular resolution plan failed because facilitating the CIRP in line with CoC directions and explaining the regulatory framework did not amount to taking sides. The observations on those points were neutralised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 09:21:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1513 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788758</link>
      <description>Adverse remarks against a resolution professional must rest on the record and on established duties. Remarks on delayed filing of extension and liquidation applications, including late submission of hard copies, were supported by the record and were upheld. By contrast, criticism that the resolution professional was lax in filing progress reports was unsustainable because no specific reporting direction was shown, and the allegation of canvassing for a particular resolution plan failed because facilitating the CIRP in line with CoC directions and explaining the regulatory framework did not amount to taking sides. The observations on those points were neutralised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>