<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1198 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347140</link>
    <description>A Section 9 insolvency application by operational creditors requires strict compliance with the statutory preconditions: a joint filing is not maintainable because the Code does not enable multiple operational creditors to proceed together, the certificate from a recognised financial institution under Section 9(3)(c) is mandatory, and a demand notice under Section 8 must be issued by the creditor or an authorised representative with the requisite connection to it. The record also disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute, supported by earlier correspondence and a pending suit, which independently barred admission of the insolvency petition. The corporate insolvency process and all consequential directions were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1198 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347140</link>
      <description>A Section 9 insolvency application by operational creditors requires strict compliance with the statutory preconditions: a joint filing is not maintainable because the Code does not enable multiple operational creditors to proceed together, the certificate from a recognised financial institution under Section 9(3)(c) is mandatory, and a demand notice under Section 8 must be issued by the creditor or an authorised representative with the requisite connection to it. The record also disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute, supported by earlier correspondence and a pending suit, which independently barred admission of the insolvency petition. The corporate insolvency process and all consequential directions were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>