<?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 (9) TMI 1848 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799822</link>
    <description>Adjournment of resolution-plan approval proceedings was unwarranted once the application seeking replacement of the resolution professional had been withdrawn. The resolution-plan approval application, unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors, was unrelated to the replacement request. Prolonged insolvency proceedings, repeated interlocutory applications, an unsuccessful settlement proposal, and an undertaking to cooperate in expeditious hearings further supported refusal of a further adjournment. The refusal and associated costs remained effective, while adverse remarks against counsel were not to operate to counsel&#039;s prejudice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:12:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1848 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799822</link>
      <description>Adjournment of resolution-plan approval proceedings was unwarranted once the application seeking replacement of the resolution professional had been withdrawn. The resolution-plan approval application, unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors, was unrelated to the replacement request. Prolonged insolvency proceedings, repeated interlocutory applications, an unsuccessful settlement proposal, and an undertaking to cooperate in expeditious hearings further supported refusal of a further adjournment. The refusal and associated costs remained effective, while adverse remarks against counsel were not to operate to counsel&#039;s prejudice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>