<?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 (2) TMI 1500 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375873</link>
    <description>A Section 9 IBC application was not admitted because a plausible pre-existing dispute existed over the commission claim and the contractual product description, with the entitlement and due date of the alleged debt remaining unclear. The tribunal also found that proper service of the demand notice was not satisfactorily established and that the application lacked required statutory particulars, including the date the debt fell due and support for the vendor registration cost claim. These defects in notice, disclosure and documentation meant the statutory requirements for admission were not met, so the petition was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:57:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=560154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 1500 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375873</link>
      <description>A Section 9 IBC application was not admitted because a plausible pre-existing dispute existed over the commission claim and the contractual product description, with the entitlement and due date of the alleged debt remaining unclear. The tribunal also found that proper service of the demand notice was not satisfactorily established and that the application lacked required statutory particulars, including the date the debt fell due and support for the vendor registration cost claim. These defects in notice, disclosure and documentation meant the statutory requirements for admission were not met, so the petition was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>