<?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 1839 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI- LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771567</link>
    <description>A home-buyer Section 7 application was held within limitation where the corporate debtor&#039;s audited balance sheet treated customer advances as current liabilities, and its balance confirmation acknowledged the dues; the later filing was not defeated by withdrawal of an earlier application, especially with COVID-19 exclusion applied. Allegations of collusion and dummy allotment were rejected because inter se shareholder disputes could not displace the home-buyers&#039; statutory remedy, and the stalled project with long-delayed possession supported the claim. A promoter settlement proposal could not override the admitted insolvency process, since the CoC&#039;s rejection was neither arbitrary nor irrational.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 08:26:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1839 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI- LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771567</link>
      <description>A home-buyer Section 7 application was held within limitation where the corporate debtor&#039;s audited balance sheet treated customer advances as current liabilities, and its balance confirmation acknowledged the dues; the later filing was not defeated by withdrawal of an earlier application, especially with COVID-19 exclusion applied. Allegations of collusion and dummy allotment were rejected because inter se shareholder disputes could not displace the home-buyers&#039; statutory remedy, and the stalled project with long-delayed possession supported the claim. A promoter settlement proposal could not override the admitted insolvency process, since the CoC&#039;s rejection was neither arbitrary nor irrational.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>