<?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 (5) TMI 266 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769994</link>
    <description>The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that gratuity claims with interest awarded by Labour Commissioner constitute operational debt under IBC Section 5(21). The court rejected the corporate debtor&#039;s plea of pre-existing dispute, finding that suits filed after the demand notice were mala fide attempts to avoid liability, particularly when the company had previously agreed before Delhi HC that workers could file claims under Sections 8 &amp;amp; 9. The prior dismissal of trade union&#039;s Section 9 application on prematurity grounds did not operate as res judicata against the present individual claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 08:37:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 266 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769994</link>
      <description>The NCLAT dismissed the appeal and held that gratuity claims with interest awarded by Labour Commissioner constitute operational debt under IBC Section 5(21). The court rejected the corporate debtor&#039;s plea of pre-existing dispute, finding that suits filed after the demand notice were mala fide attempts to avoid liability, particularly when the company had previously agreed before Delhi HC that workers could file claims under Sections 8 &amp;amp; 9. The prior dismissal of trade union&#039;s Section 9 application on prematurity grounds did not operate as res judicata against the present individual claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>