<?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 (4) TMI 15 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788946</link>
    <description>Development rights in a real estate project can be treated as property and assets of the corporate debtor for insolvency purposes, and the Adjudicating Authority may consider the project as an integrated whole when examining the Section 7 threshold. Interim arbitral orders do not operate in rem and do not prevent admission of a Section 7 petition or the operation of moratorium and overriding provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Observations on Tower 5 were treated as contextual and not as a final adjudication of title or ownership, because no such issue had been sought for determination. The challenge was rejected and the CIRP left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:51:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 15 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788946</link>
      <description>Development rights in a real estate project can be treated as property and assets of the corporate debtor for insolvency purposes, and the Adjudicating Authority may consider the project as an integrated whole when examining the Section 7 threshold. Interim arbitral orders do not operate in rem and do not prevent admission of a Section 7 petition or the operation of moratorium and overriding provisions under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Observations on Tower 5 were treated as contextual and not as a final adjudication of title or ownership, because no such issue had been sought for determination. The challenge was rejected and the CIRP left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>