<?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>2025 (2) TMI 523 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765977</link>
    <description>NCLAT upheld the admission of Pre-Packed Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for a corporate debtor with valid MSME registration despite the application being filed beyond the mandatory 14-day period under Section 11A(3) of IBC. The tribunal found that while the adjudicating authority should have considered the Section 7 application first, setting aside the completed resolution would not serve stakeholders&#039; interests as the debtor had been successfully resolved with payments made to all lenders. The tribunal directed payment of any differential amount to the dissenting financial creditor within 30 days as per Section 30(2)(b) of IBC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:26:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 523 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765977</link>
      <description>NCLAT upheld the admission of Pre-Packed Insolvency Resolution Process (PPIRP) for a corporate debtor with valid MSME registration despite the application being filed beyond the mandatory 14-day period under Section 11A(3) of IBC. The tribunal found that while the adjudicating authority should have considered the Section 7 application first, setting aside the completed resolution would not serve stakeholders&#039; interests as the debtor had been successfully resolved with payments made to all lenders. The tribunal directed payment of any differential amount to the dissenting financial creditor within 30 days as per Section 30(2)(b) of IBC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>