{"id":282321,"date":"2023-01-24T12:00:45","date_gmt":"2023-01-24T06:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=282321"},"modified":"2023-02-03T17:34:32","modified_gmt":"2023-02-03T12:04:32","slug":"after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal<\/span>: While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the decision of CoC to vote on the resolution plan as it is the wisdom of CoC to take a decision in this regard.<\/p>\n

In the case at hand, the Adjudicating Authority initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against ‘Mittal Corp Limited' (Corporate Debtor). The Resolution Professional received resolution plans including the resolution plan submitted by the appellant as well as by Respondent 2. In a meeting, the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) decided to adopt the Challenge mechanism for negotiation with the Resolution Applicants. All the Resolution Applicants were communicated the rules of the Challenge Process and after receipt of the unconditional acceptance, Challenge Process was conducted. All the Resolution Applicants submitted their resolution plans. Later, Respondent 2 revised its offer. In a meeting after qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the resolution plans, CoC resolved to put resolution plans to vote. Further, Respondent No.2 filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking a direction that Resolution Professional to consider the increased offer and place the same before the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority ordered consideration of revised resolution plan. This order has been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal.<\/p>\n

The question before the Tribunal is whether after closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, the Adjudicating Authority can direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter?<\/p>\n

The Tribunal after taking note of Regulation 39 (1A) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016<\/a> (‘CIRP Regulations') said that the regulation has been brought in place to enable the CoC to negotiate with all the Resolution Applicants by one alternative mechanism to find out the best resolution plan.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal further noted that Clause 7 of the Challenge Process clearly contemplates that after conclusion of the Challenge Process, the eligible Resolution Applicants shall not revise their bid\/commercial offer. It is relevant to note that Challenge Process also reserves the unconditional right of the CoC to cancel\/ modify\/ withdraw\/ abandon\/ amend the process of the Challenge Process at any stage. The approval of the plan submitted in CIRP is in the domain of the CoC. Under Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations, the committee is entitled to record its deliberation and vote on such resolution plan simultaneously.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal said that there can be no fetter on the power of the CoC to cancel or modify any negotiation with the Resolution Applicant including a Challenge Process but it is the wisdom of the CoC to take a decision in that regard. CoC, in the facts of the present case, did not take any decision to disregard the Challenge Process, rather it decided to vote on the plan.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal further noted that it is well settled that the timeline in the IBC has its salutary value, and it was the wisdom of the CoC which decided to vote on the Resolution Plan after completion of Challenge Process and not to proceed to take any further negotiation or further modification of the plan, that decision ought not to have been interfered with.<\/p>\n

The Application was filed by the Respondent No.2 by which date CoC has already decided to resolve the vote on all the plans and voting has also commenced. The Adjudicating Authority should not have interfered without there being any valid reason.<\/p>\n

Hence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority.<\/p>\n

[Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. Shailendra Ajmera, 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 44<\/a>, decided on 18-01-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Counsel for Appellant: – Sr. Advocate Ramji Srinivasan, Advocate Rahul Kumar, Advocate Bishwajit Dubey, Advocate Neha, Advocate Madhvi Divan, Advocate Vikas Mehta, Advocate Sahil Monga, Advocate Apoorv Khator, Advocate Rashi Rampal<\/p>\n

Counsel for Respondents: – Advocate Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate Shweta Dubey, Advocate Kanishka Prasad, Advocate Abhijit Sinha, Advocate Anuj Tiwari, Advocate Kaustubh Rai, Advocate Rahul Kumar, Advocate Saurabh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Aditya Shukla, Advocate Tuhina Mishra, Advocate Gaurav Mitra, Advocate Piyush Beriwal, Advocate Ankit Raj, Sr. Advocate Ritin Rai, Advocate Udit Mendiratta, Advocate Niharika Sharma, Advocate Tejas Jha, Advocate Shivkrit Rai<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that once the CoC has decided to vote on the resolution plans after closure of challenge process, the Adjudicating Authority cannot direct the CoC to consider any revised plan submitted thereafter.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":279124,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[54660,32458,22814,22014,30228],"class_list":["post-282321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-challenge-process","tag-committee-of-creditors","tag-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process","tag-nclat","tag-resolution-plan"],"yoast_head":"\nNCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere\" \/>\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\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-01-24T06:30:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-02-03T12:04:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"390\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"310\" \/>\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=\"4 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\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/\",\"name\":\"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-01-24T06:30:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-02-03T12:04:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg\",\"width\":390,\"height\":310,\"caption\":\"NCLAT\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter\"}]},{\"@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| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter | SCC Times","description":"While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere","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\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter","og_description":"While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-01-24T06:30:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-02-03T12:04:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":390,"height":310,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/","name":"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","datePublished":"2023-01-24T06:30:45+00:00","dateModified":"2023-02-03T12:04:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","width":390,"height":310,"caption":"NCLAT"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/after-closure-of-challenge-process-and-consequent-receipt-of-resolution-plan-the-adjudicating-authority-cannotdirect-consideration-of-the-revised-plan-submitted-thereafter\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter"}]},{"@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\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-395.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"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":282321,"position":0},"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 "Case Briefs"","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":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":282321,"position":1},"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 "Case Briefs"","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":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":282321,"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 "Case Briefs"","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":285588,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/27\/corporate-insolvency-cirp-resolution-plan-not-approval-eligibility-of-the-resolution-applicant-appeal-last-opportunity-revival-of-corporate-debtor\/","url_meta":{"origin":282321,"position":3},"title":"NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor","author":"Ritu","date":"February 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In a case related to rejection of Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, which was once approve the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal opined that the Adjudicating Authority was right on non-approval of the Resolution Plan as the Adjudicating Authority's order was not followed in its true spirit.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":281182,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/06\/legal-updates-legal-news-once-the-resolution-plan-is-submitted-for-approval-it-is-binding-between-committee-of-creditors-and-successful-resolution-applicant\/","url_meta":{"origin":282321,"position":4},"title":"NCLAT | Once the resolution plan is submitted for approval, it is binding between the Committee of Creditors and successful resolution applicant","author":"Editor","date":"January 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"NCLAT while deciding the appeal held that the CoC after approving the resolution plan cannot seek direction from Adjudicating Authority to consider the new resolution plan of a third party who was not a part of the CIRP as it would fall outside the timeline and defeat the very scope\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":236860,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/07\/nclat-will-ib-code-permit-a-successful-resolution-applicant-to-stage-a-u-turn-frustrating-corporate-insolvency-resolution-process-tribunal-decodes\/","url_meta":{"origin":282321,"position":5},"title":"NCLAT | Will I&B Code permit a successful Resolution Applicant to stage a “U-turn” frustrating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process? Tribunal decodes","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0Full Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (ACJ) and Justice Anant Bijay Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member), while addressing the present application observed that, A Resolution Applicant whose Resolution Plan stands approved by Committee of Creditors cannot be permitted to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282321","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=282321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282321\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}