<?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 (5) TMI 2242 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467078</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency admission was found unsustainable where only two invoices survived the limitation challenge, the remaining invoices were time-barred and that finding had attained finality, and the corporate debtor offered to pay the admitted dues with interest and IRP expenses. The NCLAT noted that the surviving claim met the Code&#039;s maintainability threshold, but continuation of the admission order was unnecessary because the broader claim could not be revived in insolvency proceedings and the process had not advanced to constitution of the CoC. The admission was set aside, the deposited amount was directed to be released to the operational creditor with accrued interest, and the IRP was to be paid his fees and expenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 19:17:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2242 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467078</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency admission was found unsustainable where only two invoices survived the limitation challenge, the remaining invoices were time-barred and that finding had attained finality, and the corporate debtor offered to pay the admitted dues with interest and IRP expenses. The NCLAT noted that the surviving claim met the Code&#039;s maintainability threshold, but continuation of the admission order was unnecessary because the broader claim could not be revived in insolvency proceedings and the process had not advanced to constitution of the CoC. The admission was set aside, the deposited amount was directed to be released to the operational creditor with accrued interest, and the IRP was to be paid his fees and expenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>