<?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>2021 (5) TMI 550 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407671</link>
    <description>The Appeals were dismissed, confirming that the application under Section 7 of IBC was filed within the limitation period. The second application against the Corporate Debtor is maintainable despite prior CIRP against the Corporate Guarantor. The Resolution Applicant cannot exercise rights over the subsidiaries of the Corporate Guarantor, and the SEZ business of the Corporate Debtor was not included in the resolution plan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 550 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407671</link>
      <description>The Appeals were dismissed, confirming that the application under Section 7 of IBC was filed within the limitation period. The second application against the Corporate Debtor is maintainable despite prior CIRP against the Corporate Guarantor. The Resolution Applicant cannot exercise rights over the subsidiaries of the Corporate Guarantor, and the SEZ business of the Corporate Debtor was not included in the resolution plan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>