<?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 (7) TMI 1460 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775392</link>
    <description>The NCLAT held that the two lease instalments falling due post-CIRP commencement are not CIRP costs per its precedent but may become so if the SC rules otherwise; unpaid water and sewer charges are confirmed as CIRP costs. Time extension charges levied by NOIDA for up to three years beyond the original project completion period are CIRP costs, but penalties beyond three years are not. The Adjudicating Authority erred in remitting the resolution plan back to the CoC without restarting CIRP from the Information Memorandum stage; given the elapsed time and multiple applicants, CoC may issue a fresh RFRP limited to previously shortlisted applicants with a 30-day submission period. The RP shall include undertakings regarding potential CIRP costs. The period of pendency before the Adjudicating Authority and appeals is excluded from the CIRP timeline, and a 90-day extension for CIRP completion is granted. Appeals are disposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:28:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1460 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775392</link>
      <description>The NCLAT held that the two lease instalments falling due post-CIRP commencement are not CIRP costs per its precedent but may become so if the SC rules otherwise; unpaid water and sewer charges are confirmed as CIRP costs. Time extension charges levied by NOIDA for up to three years beyond the original project completion period are CIRP costs, but penalties beyond three years are not. The Adjudicating Authority erred in remitting the resolution plan back to the CoC without restarting CIRP from the Information Memorandum stage; given the elapsed time and multiple applicants, CoC may issue a fresh RFRP limited to previously shortlisted applicants with a 30-day submission period. The RP shall include undertakings regarding potential CIRP costs. The period of pendency before the Adjudicating Authority and appeals is excluded from the CIRP timeline, and a 90-day extension for CIRP completion is granted. Appeals are disposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>