<?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>2026 (2) TMI 736 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786588</link>
    <description>CIRP admitted under Section 7 was closed where a settlement framework among stakeholders, withdrawal by certain petitioning allottees, promoter undertakings to fund completion, and evidence of regulatory clearances and IRP preparatory steps justified reassessment; outcome: CIRP terminated. Construction of the real estate project was permitted to proceed funded by the promoter under the supervision of the interim resolution professional, with directions that the IRP be paid fees and reasonable expenses and that eligible allottees retain liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if valid grounds emerge; outcome: promoter-funded completion under IRP supervision permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 09:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 736 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786588</link>
      <description>CIRP admitted under Section 7 was closed where a settlement framework among stakeholders, withdrawal by certain petitioning allottees, promoter undertakings to fund completion, and evidence of regulatory clearances and IRP preparatory steps justified reassessment; outcome: CIRP terminated. Construction of the real estate project was permitted to proceed funded by the promoter under the supervision of the interim resolution professional, with directions that the IRP be paid fees and reasonable expenses and that eligible allottees retain liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if valid grounds emerge; outcome: promoter-funded completion under IRP supervision permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>