<?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 (10) TMI 876 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800933</link>
    <description>Resolution-plan approval requires the plan to identify the cause of default and set out how it will address that cause; recording losses, lack of turnover and liabilities, or offering an undefined future business proposal, is insufficient. Committee of Creditors approval cannot cure this mandatory compliance failure. A plan valued below liquidation value does not alone prejudice a dissenting financial creditor if its minimum liquidation entitlement is paid in cash and in priority. Investigation by a liquidator, including potential avoidance proceedings, may be warranted by the debtor&#039;s circumstances. An assignee&#039;s distributable share cannot be capped before that investigation. Rectification or restoration of CIRP before liquidation remains discretionary, not mandatory. Material non-compliance and circumstances requiring investigation can support plan rejection and liquidation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 06:17:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 876 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800933</link>
      <description>Resolution-plan approval requires the plan to identify the cause of default and set out how it will address that cause; recording losses, lack of turnover and liabilities, or offering an undefined future business proposal, is insufficient. Committee of Creditors approval cannot cure this mandatory compliance failure. A plan valued below liquidation value does not alone prejudice a dissenting financial creditor if its minimum liquidation entitlement is paid in cash and in priority. Investigation by a liquidator, including potential avoidance proceedings, may be warranted by the debtor&#039;s circumstances. An assignee&#039;s distributable share cannot be capped before that investigation. Rectification or restoration of CIRP before liquidation remains discretionary, not mandatory. Material non-compliance and circumstances requiring investigation can support plan rejection and liquidation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>