<?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 (8) TMI 140 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383951</link>
    <description>Mortgages created by a corporate debtor to secure borrowings of its holding company were held outside the avoidance provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The security did not amount to a preferential transaction because it was not given for an antecedent debt of the corporate debtor or to improve a creditor&#039;s position in its own insolvency distribution. It was also not an undervalued transaction, as the statutory elements of gift or inadequate consideration were not established. Finally, the arrangements did not constitute fraudulent trading or wrongful trading because there was no material showing intent to defraud creditors or continuation of business without due diligence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2020 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 140 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383951</link>
      <description>Mortgages created by a corporate debtor to secure borrowings of its holding company were held outside the avoidance provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The security did not amount to a preferential transaction because it was not given for an antecedent debt of the corporate debtor or to improve a creditor&#039;s position in its own insolvency distribution. It was also not an undervalued transaction, as the statutory elements of gift or inadequate consideration were not established. Finally, the arrangements did not constitute fraudulent trading or wrongful trading because there was no material showing intent to defraud creditors or continuation of business without due diligence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>