<?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 (11) TMI 780 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350901</link>
    <description>A SARFAESI auction is treated as an incomplete enforcement process until full consideration is paid, the secured creditor confirms the sale under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and a sale certificate is issued; on that basis, the pending enforcement remains subject to the moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The document also notes that disclosure of the pending SARFAESI proceedings in a section 7 petition did not amount to fraud or malicious initiation, so section 65 could not be invoked to recall the admission order. Both applications therefore failed and the admission order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:54:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 780 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350901</link>
      <description>A SARFAESI auction is treated as an incomplete enforcement process until full consideration is paid, the secured creditor confirms the sale under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and a sale certificate is issued; on that basis, the pending enforcement remains subject to the moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The document also notes that disclosure of the pending SARFAESI proceedings in a section 7 petition did not amount to fraud or malicious initiation, so section 65 could not be invoked to recall the admission order. Both applications therefore failed and the admission order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>