https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789807 An approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds all stakeholders and prevails over inconsistent objections to implementation, including challenges to State consent for change in shareholding and control where consent was contemplated by the plan. A shareholder of the corporate debtor cannot assert an independent proprietary right in project assets or control to resist the resolution process, and no violation of Article 300A arises where the consequence flows from lawful insolvency resolution. Conditions attached to consent were treated as commercial arrangements, not an impermissible modification of the plan or hostile discrimination under Article 14. Collateral challenges based on public procurement, FDI policy, re-litigation, and costs were not accepted. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:05:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789807 An approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds all stakeholders and prevails over inconsistent objections to implementation, including challenges to State consent for change in shareholding and control where consent was contemplated by the plan. A shareholder of the corporate debtor cannot assert an independent proprietary right in project assets or control to resist the resolution process, and no violation of Article 300A arises where the consequence flows from lawful insolvency resolution. Conditions attached to consent were treated as commercial arrangements, not an impermissible modification of the plan or hostile discrimination under Article 14. Collateral challenges based on public procurement, FDI policy, re-litigation, and costs were not accepted. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789807