<?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 (4) TMI 1405 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769491</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging admission of Section 7 IBC petition by homebuyers against real estate developer. The tribunal held the petition was not time-barred due to continuing default and debt acknowledgment in balance sheet extending limitation period. Homebuyers satisfied statutory threshold requirements under Section 7(1) as financial creditors despite some holding recovery certificates. No fraudulent intent was established by the corporate debtor, who failed to produce documentary evidence supporting malicious initiation claims. The adjudicating authority correctly admitted the petition and initiated CIRP proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:30:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=817544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1405 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769491</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging admission of Section 7 IBC petition by homebuyers against real estate developer. The tribunal held the petition was not time-barred due to continuing default and debt acknowledgment in balance sheet extending limitation period. Homebuyers satisfied statutory threshold requirements under Section 7(1) as financial creditors despite some holding recovery certificates. No fraudulent intent was established by the corporate debtor, who failed to produce documentary evidence supporting malicious initiation claims. The adjudicating authority correctly admitted the petition and initiated CIRP proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>