<?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 (10) TMI 632 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760033</link>
    <description>Where a clarificatory note is expressly made part of an approved resolution plan and given overriding effect, its broad wording governs additional statutory dues payable to workmen and employees, including provident fund and gratuity. The note covered liabilities payable by operation of law or for any other reason, whether admitted or unadmitted, crystallised or uncrystallised, and these dues were treated as payable under the plan rather than outside it. The separate claim for unpaid salary from July to November 2020 was not accepted, as the record showed CIRP costs had already been accounted for on the basis determined by the resolution professional and no further payment was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:33:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 632 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760033</link>
      <description>Where a clarificatory note is expressly made part of an approved resolution plan and given overriding effect, its broad wording governs additional statutory dues payable to workmen and employees, including provident fund and gratuity. The note covered liabilities payable by operation of law or for any other reason, whether admitted or unadmitted, crystallised or uncrystallised, and these dues were treated as payable under the plan rather than outside it. The separate claim for unpaid salary from July to November 2020 was not accepted, as the record showed CIRP costs had already been accounted for on the basis determined by the resolution professional and no further payment was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>