<?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 1237 - IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (COURT NO. IV)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377216</link>
    <description>A pre-existing dispute can bar admission of a section 9 insolvency application where the record shows a real and plausible contention requiring further investigation. The definition of dispute under section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is inclusive and extends to suits or arbitration concerning the debt, quality of goods or services, or breach of representation or warranty. Here, the respondent had already challenged the settlement agreements before a civil court and had raised the controversy before issuance of the demand notice under section 8, so a prior dispute existed and the section 9 application was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1237 - IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI (COURT NO. IV)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377216</link>
      <description>A pre-existing dispute can bar admission of a section 9 insolvency application where the record shows a real and plausible contention requiring further investigation. The definition of dispute under section 5(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is inclusive and extends to suits or arbitration concerning the debt, quality of goods or services, or breach of representation or warranty. Here, the respondent had already challenged the settlement agreements before a civil court and had raised the controversy before issuance of the demand notice under section 8, so a prior dispute existed and the section 9 application was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>