{"id":254682,"date":"2021-09-24T14:00:05","date_gmt":"2021-09-24T08:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=254682"},"modified":"2021-09-24T11:41:45","modified_gmt":"2021-09-24T06:11:45","slug":"in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):<\/strong> The Coram of Justice A.I.S. Cheema, Officiating Chairperson and Alok Srivastava, Technical Member while dismissing an appeal affirmed adjudicating authority\u2019s impugned order on not finding any substance in the appeal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the pertinent matter the impugned order of NCLT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai was challenged where the adjudicating authority disagreed with the Committee of Creditors which had approved \u2018success fees\u2019 to the Resolution Professional of an amount of\u00a0 \u20b9 3 Crore. The adjudicating authority had opined, \u201cWe believe that if the RP was so certain, he should have claimed\/ asked for the success fees in the beginning itself and now when the plan is approved. It was only in the distribution matrix that he\/CoC had approved the success fees to the RP. With this observation RP and the CoC to proportionately distribute the said amount of Rs 3 Cr. among the employees\/ underpaid operational creditors\/unsecured creditors of the corporate debtor and if left, it is to be proportionately distributed among the underpaid operational creditors\u201d. The appellants submitted that the approval of the success fees was a commercial decision of the CoC and the adjudicating authority could not have interfered with the same. To which the adjudicating authority replied in its order that, \u201c&#8230;Fixation of fee is not a business decision depending upon the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors\u201d.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Interestingly, Amicus Curiae submitted that there were many instances of exorbitant charging of fees by the resolution professional and the adjudicating authority has interfered so as to rationalise the same. In the present matter, at the last stage when Resolution Plan was being approved the Resolution Professional without putting on record necessary particulars for the success fee got the same included. CoC may be approving the fees but as it has to be reasonable under the provisions of the Code and Regulations, it is justiciable.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Tribunal while appreciating the support of the Amicus Curiae and concurring with the NCLT\u2019s order opined,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201cwe hold that \u2018success fees\u2019 which is more in the nature of contingency and speculative is not part of the provisions of the IBC and the Regulations and the same is not chargeable. Apart from this, even if it is to be said that it is chargeable, we find that in the present matter, the manner in which, it was last minute pushed at the time of approval of the Resolution Plan and the quantum are both improper and incorrect\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">And further stated that,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201cThe argument that the Adjudicating Authority should have sent the matter back to the CoC if it was not approving the success fee deserves to be discarded as the Adjudicating Authority while not accepting the success fee merely asked proportionate distribution which would even otherwise have happened if \u2018success fee\u2019 was set aside as the money would become available improving percentage of other creditors\u2019 dues\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">[Jayesh N. Sanghrajka v. Monitoring Agency nominated by the Committee of Creditors of Ariisto Developers Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 392 of 2021, decided on 20-09-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span style=\"color: #333300;\">Agatha Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Counsel for the Parties:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>For Appellant:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mr Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr Tishampati Sen, Ms Riddhi Sancheti, Mr Ashish Perwani, Mr Devesh Juvekar, Ms Jyoti Goyal and Mr Dikshat Mehra, Advocates.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>For Respondents:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">(Notice not issued)<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Mr. Sumant Batra, Ld. Amicus Curiae<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice A.I.S. Cheema, Officiating Chairperson and Alok Srivastava, Technical Member while dismissing an <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":153604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[40639,47183,47181,47184,22014,12521,34025,47182,47180],"class_list":["post-254682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-coc","tag-commercial-wisdom","tag-contingency","tag-fixation-of-fee","tag-nclat","tag-nclt","tag-resolution-professional","tag-speculative","tag-success-fee"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-09-24T08:30:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"844\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/\",\"name\":\"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-24T08:30:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":844},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution | SCC Times","description":"In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution","og_description":"In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-09-24T08:30:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/","name":"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","datePublished":"2021-09-24T08:30:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","width":1330,"height":844},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/24\/in-last-meeting-of-coc-unreasonable-pushed-in-success-fee-appears-like-an-afterthought\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCLAT | In last meeting of CoC, unreasonable pushed in \u2018success fee\u2019 appears like an afterthought-Affirms proportionate distribution"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":285793,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/01\/coc-resolution-plan-approved-nclt-application-rejected-direction-for-reconsideration-appeal-nclat-order-set-aside-company-law-legal-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":254682,"position":0},"title":"Once Resolution Plan approved and submitted to Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be sent back for re-consideration: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"March 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In matter related to reconsideration of Resolution Plan after approval, NCLAT held that thought the object of the CIRP is maximisation of value of the Corporate Debtor, but the said maximisation must be achieved within the timeline provided in the scheme.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281287,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/09\/corporate-debtor-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-resolution-plan-coc-approved-nclt-allowed-appeal-nclat-commercial-wisdom-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":254682,"position":1},"title":"NCLAT cannot direct modifications of claims once the Resolution Plan is approved","author":"Editor","date":"January 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In instant matter, the appellants filed an appeal challenging the NCLT order approving the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC. The NCLAT held that once Resolution plan is approved by CoC, it cannot direct modifications of claims to Resolution Plan as the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":307307,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/16\/financial-debt-claims-under-section-58-of-ibc-cannot-be-entertained-after-cocs-approval-of-resolution-plan-nclat-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":254682,"position":2},"title":"Financial Debt claim under Section 5(8) of IBC cannot be entertained after CoC\u2019s approval of Resolution Plan: NCLAT","author":"Ritu","date":"November 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCLAT reiterated the importance of adhering to timelines in the Insolvency resolution process and the unacceptability of claims filed after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"national company law appellate tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/national-company-law-appellate-tribunal-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281427,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/11\/corporate-debtor-default-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-coc-liquidation-nclt-reconsider-liquidation-appeal-nclat-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":254682,"position":3},"title":"Adjudicating Authority is obligated to give direction for liquidation only when CoC&#8217;s decision is in accordance with IBC: NCLAT","author":"Editor","date":"January 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the instant matter, an appeal was filed challenging NCLT's order directing the CoC to reconsider its decision. Upholding the NCLT's order, the Tribunal held that when the CoC's decision for liquidation is in accordance with IBC, then only NCLT's obligation to direct liquidation will arise.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":282006,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/20\/corporate-debtor-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-cirp-resolution-professional-resolution-plan-coc-approved-settlement-plan-nclt-application-section-a-rejected-nclat-appeal-no-error-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":254682,"position":4},"title":"Strong reason required to keep the application in abeyance; NCLAT dismisses appeal finding no error in Adjudicating Authority&#8217;s order","author":"Editor","date":"January 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Tribunal observed that an application under S. 12A cannot be entertained after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCLAT","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":284731,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/22\/resolution-plan-coc-successful-resolution-professional-financial-creditor-application-nclt-reconsider-resolution-plan-allowed-nclat-appeal-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":254682,"position":5},"title":"In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers","author":"Ritu","date":"February 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In the instant matter an appeal was preferred before NCLAT challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority remitting a Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration in accordance with law.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-458.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254682\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}