<?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 (12) TMI 1652 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278118</link>
    <description>For a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the adjudicating authority must be satisfied on the basis of the creditor&#039;s records and evidence that a financial debt is due and default has occurred. A discrepancy between the figures and dates of default stated in the application and supporting statements does not, by itself, defeat the petition where the difference is explained by interest accrual and adjustments in other recovery proceedings. The challenge to admission therefore failed, and the insolvency proceedings were sustained because default remained established despite the alleged mismatch in claimed amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:10:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1652 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278118</link>
      <description>For a Section 7 application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the adjudicating authority must be satisfied on the basis of the creditor&#039;s records and evidence that a financial debt is due and default has occurred. A discrepancy between the figures and dates of default stated in the application and supporting statements does not, by itself, defeat the petition where the difference is explained by interest accrual and adjustments in other recovery proceedings. The challenge to admission therefore failed, and the insolvency proceedings were sustained because default remained established despite the alleged mismatch in claimed amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>