In this landmark judgment, NCLAT has interpreted CIRP Regulation 39 with questions such as (i) Whether Regulation 39(1A) contains an implied prohibition on the jurisdiction of the CoC to enter into any further negotiations with Resolution Applicant or to further ask a Resolution Applicant to increase its Resolution Plan value, (ii) Whether the Regulation 39(1A) has taken place of the negotiation process and it forecloses any negotiation by CoC with Resolution Applicant (iii) authorisation of authorised representative to file a appeal etc. NCLAT has concluded that even after completion of Challenge Mechanism under Regulation 39(1A)(b), the CoC retain its jurisdiction to negotiate with one or other Resolution Applicants, or to annul the Resolution Process and embark on to re-issue RFRP. Regulation 39(1A) cannot be read as a fetter on the powers of the CoC to discuss and deliberate and take further steps of negotiations with the Resolution Applicants, which resolutions are received after completion of Challenge Mechanism.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember…
Either type keywords in “Search here” bar or follow below instructions:
Bookmark IP Tool or remember this link: https://ibclaw.in/ibc-case-laws/ for future reference.
For YouTube Guide, Click here.
You feedback is highly appreciated and help us to motivate our team. Feedback here.
IBC Commentary Index(Clickable)
