Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Maintenance to Wife Should Not Encourage Idleness or Be Excessive: Gujarat HC Reduces Family Court Enhancement under CrPC Ss.125,127
11 Mar 2026
Dehadrai Seeks Dismissal of Moitra's Dog Custody Suit
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Ramkrishna Forgings Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Professional of ACIL Limited – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal under Section 62,2[‘62. Appeal to Supreme Court. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law arising out of such order under this Code within forty-five days from the date of receipt of such order.
(2) The Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that a person was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal within forty-five days, allow the appeal to be filed within a further period not exceeding fifteen days.’] of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) is directed against the Judgment dated 19.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “NCLAT”) in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.845 of 2021 which has upheld the order passed by the Adjudica
The rejection of a Resolution Plan must comply with statutory requirements, and commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is paramount, limiting the adjudicatory review.
(1) Approval of resolution plan – If a claim is submitted by an operational creditor claiming itself as a financial creditor, claim would have to be accorded due consideration in category to which it....
Requirement of “not less than seventy five percent of voting share of the financial creditors” is mandatory.
NCLT and NCLAT not empowered to enquire into wisdom of dissenting creditors in voting a....
The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving a resolution plan cannot be interfered with unless there is non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
The Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors in approving resolution plans must be respected, and judicial review is limited to statutory compliance under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The court affirmed that the IBC provisions take precedence over other laws in insolvency matters, reinforcing the authority of the Committee of Creditors in approving Resolution Plans.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article