<?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 578 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770306</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging rejection of Section 9 application filed by employees against corporate debtor. Tribunal held that minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore default under Section 4 of I&amp;amp;B Code is mandatory for initiating CIRP. Each employee constitutes separate operational creditor and individual dues cannot be clubbed to meet threshold requirement. Since individual dues of each appellant were below Rs. 1 crore threshold, none qualified to initiate CIRP proceedings. Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the application as statutory minimum default amount was not satisfied by any individual appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 09:12:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 578 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770306</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging rejection of Section 9 application filed by employees against corporate debtor. Tribunal held that minimum threshold of Rs. 1 crore default under Section 4 of I&amp;amp;B Code is mandatory for initiating CIRP. Each employee constitutes separate operational creditor and individual dues cannot be clubbed to meet threshold requirement. Since individual dues of each appellant were below Rs. 1 crore threshold, none qualified to initiate CIRP proceedings. Adjudicating Authority correctly rejected the application as statutory minimum default amount was not satisfied by any individual appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>