<?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 (6) TMI 133 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381056</link>
    <description>The appeal against the rejection of the application under section 9 of the Insolvency &amp;amp; Bankruptcy Code by the National Company Law Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal found that there was a pre-existing dispute as the suit was filed before the Demand Notice under section 8(1) was issued. It was determined that the Operational Creditor was no longer under the purview of the Code once a pre-existing dispute was established. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a genuine dispute and concluded that the application under section 9 was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2019 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 133 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381056</link>
      <description>The appeal against the rejection of the application under section 9 of the Insolvency &amp;amp; Bankruptcy Code by the National Company Law Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal found that there was a pre-existing dispute as the suit was filed before the Demand Notice under section 8(1) was issued. It was determined that the Operational Creditor was no longer under the purview of the Code once a pre-existing dispute was established. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a genuine dispute and concluded that the application under section 9 was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>