<?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 (11) TMI 683 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781215</link>
    <description>A real estate insolvency petition by allottees was held maintainable where two corporate debtors formed part of the same integrated project with common control, shared documentation and interconnected allotment arrangements. The statutory allottee threshold under the proviso to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was assessed as on the date of filing, so later settlements or withdrawals did not defeat maintainability. Default was also established because the units remained incomplete, essential amenities and safety works were missing, and the required tripartite lease deeds were not executed, while the project was not lawfully fit for handover. Pending disputes with the development authority did not displace continuing default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 683 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781215</link>
      <description>A real estate insolvency petition by allottees was held maintainable where two corporate debtors formed part of the same integrated project with common control, shared documentation and interconnected allotment arrangements. The statutory allottee threshold under the proviso to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was assessed as on the date of filing, so later settlements or withdrawals did not defeat maintainability. Default was also established because the units remained incomplete, essential amenities and safety works were missing, and the required tripartite lease deeds were not executed, while the project was not lawfully fit for handover. Pending disputes with the development authority did not displace continuing default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>