<?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 650 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776463</link>
    <description>The NCLAT upheld the partial rejection of the appellant&#039;s claim in the CIRP, finding no merit in the argument that the entire claim must be admitted under Section 36 of the IBC. The claim was verified and only partially admitted, and the appellant did not challenge this further during the process. The resolution professional&#039;s refusal to accept the full claim did not amount to an invalid order. The tribunal declined to opine on the appellant&#039;s status as an operational creditor since the admitted claim was being paid by the SRA. The adjudicating authority&#039;s order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 08:32:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 650 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776463</link>
      <description>The NCLAT upheld the partial rejection of the appellant&#039;s claim in the CIRP, finding no merit in the argument that the entire claim must be admitted under Section 36 of the IBC. The claim was verified and only partially admitted, and the appellant did not challenge this further during the process. The resolution professional&#039;s refusal to accept the full claim did not amount to an invalid order. The tribunal declined to opine on the appellant&#039;s status as an operational creditor since the admitted claim was being paid by the SRA. The adjudicating authority&#039;s order was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>