<?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 (5) TMI 1675 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792472</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of a corporate insolvency resolution process may be permitted before constitution of the committee of creditors when the settlement is recorded and the Form-FA request is moved through the interim resolution professional within the time prescribed by regulation 30A. In that stage, approval of the committee of creditors is not yet required, and an objection based on lack of notice or hearing to another alleged operational creditor did not displace the withdrawal. Decisions dealing with claims by participating creditors or non-compliance with the prescribed withdrawal procedure were treated as distinguishable. The withdrawal was therefore found to be consistent with section 12A read with regulation 30A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1675 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792472</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of a corporate insolvency resolution process may be permitted before constitution of the committee of creditors when the settlement is recorded and the Form-FA request is moved through the interim resolution professional within the time prescribed by regulation 30A. In that stage, approval of the committee of creditors is not yet required, and an objection based on lack of notice or hearing to another alleged operational creditor did not displace the withdrawal. Decisions dealing with claims by participating creditors or non-compliance with the prescribed withdrawal procedure were treated as distinguishable. The withdrawal was therefore found to be consistent with section 12A read with regulation 30A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>