<?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>Fresh Section 7 insolvency plea rejected as existing CIRP continues; creditor directed to pursue pending interim application remedies</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94388</link>
    <description>NCLAT upheld the NCLT&#039;s refusal to admit a fresh Section 7 application filed by a financial creditor (a banking institution) against the corporate debtor, noting that CIRP had already commenced and was ongoing pursuant to earlier orders, including project-wise CIRP directions for the real estate entity. The Appellate Tribunal found no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order. However, it clarified that the applicant may pursue reliefs sought in the pending interlocutory application. NCLAT further recorded that, consistent with the amended CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional is at liberty to continue project-wise resolution for the unfinished project in which the applicant claims financial creditor status, including issuance of Information Memorandum and Form G.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Fresh Section 7 insolvency plea rejected as existing CIRP continues; creditor directed to pursue pending interim application remedies</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94388</link>
      <description>NCLAT upheld the NCLT&#039;s refusal to admit a fresh Section 7 application filed by a financial creditor (a banking institution) against the corporate debtor, noting that CIRP had already commenced and was ongoing pursuant to earlier orders, including project-wise CIRP directions for the real estate entity. The Appellate Tribunal found no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order. However, it clarified that the applicant may pursue reliefs sought in the pending interlocutory application. NCLAT further recorded that, consistent with the amended CIRP Regulations, the Resolution Professional is at liberty to continue project-wise resolution for the unfinished project in which the applicant claims financial creditor status, including issuance of Information Memorandum and Form G.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94388</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>