<?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>2024 (6) TMI 90 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753483</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging NCLT&#039;s admission of Section 7 application by real estate allottees. The tribunal held that the threshold of 100 allottees was fulfilled, clarifying that the number of allottees, not financial creditors, determines the threshold. The court found no valid possession was given to allottees as occupancy certificates remained pending with Greater Noida Authority. The tribunal rejected appellant&#039;s arguments to delete 23 units from applicants and exclude 36 unitholders claiming assured returns. The appeal was dismissed with time exclusion from interim order period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 07:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 90 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753483</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging NCLT&#039;s admission of Section 7 application by real estate allottees. The tribunal held that the threshold of 100 allottees was fulfilled, clarifying that the number of allottees, not financial creditors, determines the threshold. The court found no valid possession was given to allottees as occupancy certificates remained pending with Greater Noida Authority. The tribunal rejected appellant&#039;s arguments to delete 23 units from applicants and exclude 36 unitholders claiming assured returns. The appeal was dismissed with time exclusion from interim order period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>