<?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 (10) TMI 355 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349200</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the applicant, IDBI Bank Limited, in an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondent Company, a Corporate Guarantor. The court dismissed objections regarding the applicant&#039;s authority, submission of entries in Bankers&#039; Book, presence of other financial creditors, RBI guidelines, redundancy of Resolution Process, and validity of the proposed Interim Resolution Professional. The court established the liability of the Corporate Guarantor, confirmed the default in repayment by the Respondent Company, and upheld compliance with the requirements for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, leading to the appointment of an Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional and initiation of the process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 355 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349200</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the applicant, IDBI Bank Limited, in an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Respondent Company, a Corporate Guarantor. The court dismissed objections regarding the applicant&#039;s authority, submission of entries in Bankers&#039; Book, presence of other financial creditors, RBI guidelines, redundancy of Resolution Process, and validity of the proposed Interim Resolution Professional. The court established the liability of the Corporate Guarantor, confirmed the default in repayment by the Respondent Company, and upheld compliance with the requirements for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, leading to the appointment of an Interim Insolvency Resolution Professional and initiation of the process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>