<?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 1229 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777041</link>
    <description>NCLAT held the appeal by the Resolution Professional was maintainable and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s adverse observations accusing the RP of excess and abuse of power should be deleted, and its direction to forward a copy to IBBI was set aside. The panel confirmed the RP&#039;s statutory duty under CIRP regulations to verify claims as on the insolvency commencement date and that verification is not adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s direction to reconsider the claim of Respondent No.1 was upheld; the RP must reconsider and take a decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1229 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777041</link>
      <description>NCLAT held the appeal by the Resolution Professional was maintainable and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s adverse observations accusing the RP of excess and abuse of power should be deleted, and its direction to forward a copy to IBBI was set aside. The panel confirmed the RP&#039;s statutory duty under CIRP regulations to verify claims as on the insolvency commencement date and that verification is not adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority&#039;s direction to reconsider the claim of Respondent No.1 was upheld; the RP must reconsider and take a decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>