<?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 (3) TMI 439 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767053</link>
    <description>Homebuyer claims filed more than two years after approval of the resolution plan and beyond the final claim-submission date were not entitled to be admitted. The commentary states that a resolution plan may permit only limited delayed-claim windows, but once the plan is approved, claims not included in it stand frozen and claims outside it are extinguished. The Information Memorandum was not defective for omitting claims that had not been lodged in time, and the insolvency process could not be reopened to accommodate stale demands. The cited precedent on omitted homebuyer claims was treated as distinguishable because the delay there was shorter and the plan had not yet been approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=805261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 439 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767053</link>
      <description>Homebuyer claims filed more than two years after approval of the resolution plan and beyond the final claim-submission date were not entitled to be admitted. The commentary states that a resolution plan may permit only limited delayed-claim windows, but once the plan is approved, claims not included in it stand frozen and claims outside it are extinguished. The Information Memorandum was not defective for omitting claims that had not been lodged in time, and the insolvency process could not be reopened to accommodate stale demands. The cited precedent on omitted homebuyer claims was treated as distinguishable because the delay there was shorter and the plan had not yet been approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>