<?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>2019 (1) TMI 521 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373356</link>
    <description>The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the claim made by &#039;M/s. Acquisory Consulting LLP&#039; as an &#039;Operational Creditor&#039; under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against &#039;M/s. BCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.&#039; The rejection was based on the Appellant&#039;s failure to meet the criteria of an &#039;Operational Creditor&#039; and the absence of a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&amp;amp;B Code served on the &#039;Corporate Debtor&#039;. The Engagement Letter presented by the Appellant was deemed invalid due to discrepancies, lack of signatures, and the proof of services rendered was insufficient to establish a valid relationship or serve as a demand notice. The appeal was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:51:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 521 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373356</link>
      <description>The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed the claim made by &#039;M/s. Acquisory Consulting LLP&#039; as an &#039;Operational Creditor&#039; under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against &#039;M/s. BCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.&#039; The rejection was based on the Appellant&#039;s failure to meet the criteria of an &#039;Operational Creditor&#039; and the absence of a demand notice under Section 8(1) of the I&amp;amp;B Code served on the &#039;Corporate Debtor&#039;. The Engagement Letter presented by the Appellant was deemed invalid due to discrepancies, lack of signatures, and the proof of services rendered was insufficient to establish a valid relationship or serve as a demand notice. The appeal was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>