https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790767 Surplus cash flow generated during CIRP did not vest in the successful resolution applicant because the resolution plan did not expressly transfer that surplus and the cited vesting, going-concern and claim-extinguishment clauses did not cover it. In the absence of a specific plan provision, the surplus retained its character as CIRP-period value and remained part of the insolvency estate. The adjudicating authority was therefore justified in directing distribution under the statutory waterfall mechanism, and that direction was not treated as a modification of the approved resolution plan. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790767 Surplus cash flow generated during CIRP did not vest in the successful resolution applicant because the resolution plan did not expressly transfer that surplus and the cited vesting, going-concern and claim-extinguishment clauses did not cover it. In the absence of a specific plan provision, the surplus retained its character as CIRP-period value and remained part of the insolvency estate. The adjudicating authority was therefore justified in directing distribution under the statutory waterfall mechanism, and that direction was not treated as a modification of the approved resolution plan. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790767