The Appellant does Not Qualify as an Operational Creditor under the IBC due to the Absence of Proof of debt as per the Contractual Terms agreed upon

Claims under the EPF Act, including contributions, interest, and damages, are not part of the liquidation estate; instead, these claims hold priority status

Mere Assignment of Trade Receivables Without Underlying Proof of Debt and Default is Insufficient to File an Application under Section 7 of the IBC

NCLAT clarifies that the sale of assets in liquidation under the IBC must strictly adhere to its provisions and regulations

While strict adherence to statutory timelines in a CIRP under IBC is essential, discretionary time extensions beyond 330 days are permissible in exceptional cases

Whether a 'Certified Copy' of the Impugned Order, as required under Rule 22 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, Necessary for Filing an Appeal

To File An Appeal, A Certified Copy as Defined under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act is Required, Involving A Demand and Payment of a Requisite Fee

NCLAT reiterates that even partial non-payment constitutes a default and affirms that fresh defaults post-Section 10A period justify insolvency proceedings

NCLAT established a precedent in the case of Ranju Kumari v. Value Infracon, setting the law for claims filed after the approval of a resolution plan