<?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 (7) TMI 168 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794282</link>
    <description>A registered agreement to sell, supported by the corporate debtor&#039;s virtual data room and repayment trail, was treated as sufficient to show that the applicants were genuine homebuyers and belonged in Category A of the resolution plan. The competing material was viewed as reflecting only a speculative investment arrangement, not a true home purchase. The claim could not be rejected merely as belated where the relevant allotment and payment details were already available in the corporate debtor&#039;s records, the stakeholders were not duly notified during CIRP, and the resolution professional had not exercised proper diligence in preparing the information memorandum and resolution plan. The claim was therefore directed to be admitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:49:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 168 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794282</link>
      <description>A registered agreement to sell, supported by the corporate debtor&#039;s virtual data room and repayment trail, was treated as sufficient to show that the applicants were genuine homebuyers and belonged in Category A of the resolution plan. The competing material was viewed as reflecting only a speculative investment arrangement, not a true home purchase. The claim could not be rejected merely as belated where the relevant allotment and payment details were already available in the corporate debtor&#039;s records, the stakeholders were not duly notified during CIRP, and the resolution professional had not exercised proper diligence in preparing the information memorandum and resolution plan. The claim was therefore directed to be admitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>