<?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 (8) TMI 262 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776075</link>
    <description>The SC upheld the NCLAT&#039;s decision that the appellants, as allottees, must comply with the threshold requirement under Section 7(1) of the IBC Amendment Act 2020, mandating a joint application by not less than 100 allottees or 10% of total allottees. The court found a 30-day delay in filing the appeal, which was not condonable. On merits, no sufficient grounds existed to overturn the impugned judgment. The application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 262 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776075</link>
      <description>The SC upheld the NCLAT&#039;s decision that the appellants, as allottees, must comply with the threshold requirement under Section 7(1) of the IBC Amendment Act 2020, mandating a joint application by not less than 100 allottees or 10% of total allottees. The court found a 30-day delay in filing the appeal, which was not condonable. On merits, no sufficient grounds existed to overturn the impugned judgment. The application for condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>