<?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 (10) TMI 479 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800536</link>
    <description>Parallel corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against a landholding special-purpose company are impermissible where a binding restored resolution plan, following corporate-veil lifting, treats the holding company and landholder as one economic entity and covers the project land and allottee claims. In that position, the leasehold land must be administered under the restored plan, and allottee claims do not constitute an independently due and payable debt capable of establishing a distinct default against the landholder. The threshold requirement for filing an insolvency application does not foreclose examination of subsisting debt and default at admission. A monitoring committee implementing the plan is a person aggrieved where a separate process affects the project, and binding precedent must be applied. Enforcement remedies lie within the existing insolvency process rather than a parallel process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:45:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=928647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 479 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800536</link>
      <description>Parallel corporate insolvency resolution proceedings against a landholding special-purpose company are impermissible where a binding restored resolution plan, following corporate-veil lifting, treats the holding company and landholder as one economic entity and covers the project land and allottee claims. In that position, the leasehold land must be administered under the restored plan, and allottee claims do not constitute an independently due and payable debt capable of establishing a distinct default against the landholder. The threshold requirement for filing an insolvency application does not foreclose examination of subsisting debt and default at admission. A monitoring committee implementing the plan is a person aggrieved where a separate process affects the project, and binding precedent must be applied. Enforcement remedies lie within the existing insolvency process rather than a parallel process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>