<?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 (3) TMI 1191 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377170</link>
    <description>A composite share purchase arrangement and letter of undertaking were treated as financial debt because the documents provided for a stipulated return, a fixed reversal period and a commercial effect of borrowing, so the recipient was a financial creditor. The section 7 application was held within limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act as applied by section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, because the cause of action was continuing and demands were repeatedly pursued. The transferred winding-up proceedings did not abate because the amended transfer rules extended the filing time, and the addendum-cum-corrigendum was valid as a permissible correction of a mistake apparent from the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2019 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1191 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377170</link>
      <description>A composite share purchase arrangement and letter of undertaking were treated as financial debt because the documents provided for a stipulated return, a fixed reversal period and a commercial effect of borrowing, so the recipient was a financial creditor. The section 7 application was held within limitation under article 137 of the Limitation Act as applied by section 238A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, because the cause of action was continuing and demands were repeatedly pursued. The transferred winding-up proceedings did not abate because the amended transfer rules extended the filing time, and the addendum-cum-corrigendum was valid as a permissible correction of a mistake apparent from the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>