<?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>Insolvency tribunal rejects limiting CIRP to single project, upholds inclusion of all creditor claims.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84109</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed the application seeking to confine the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) to only the &#039;Spaze Arrow&#039; project of the corporate debtor. The tribunal observed that claims had been filed by allottees of various projects, including &#039;Spaze Arrow&#039; and &#039;Corporate Park&#039;. Confining the CIRP to a single project would exclude claims from other projects. The tribunal noted that the CIRP against the corporate debtor for the &#039;Corporate Park&#039; project had commenced after obtaining the occupancy and completion certificates, but the proceedings were later set aside due to a settlement. Considering the facts and circumstances, the NCLAT declined to pass an order limiting the CIRP to only the &#039;Spaze Arrow&#039; project as requested by the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:47:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:47:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Insolvency tribunal rejects limiting CIRP to single project, upholds inclusion of all creditor claims.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84109</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed the application seeking to confine the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) to only the &#039;Spaze Arrow&#039; project of the corporate debtor. The tribunal observed that claims had been filed by allottees of various projects, including &#039;Spaze Arrow&#039; and &#039;Corporate Park&#039;. Confining the CIRP to a single project would exclude claims from other projects. The tribunal noted that the CIRP against the corporate debtor for the &#039;Corporate Park&#039; project had commenced after obtaining the occupancy and completion certificates, but the proceedings were later set aside due to a settlement. Considering the facts and circumstances, the NCLAT declined to pass an order limiting the CIRP to only the &#039;Spaze Arrow&#039; project as requested by the applicant.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:47:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>