<?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 329 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384140</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision, confirming a pre-existing dispute concerning the quality of goods supplied by the Appellants prior to the Demand Notice under Section 8 of the IBC. It dismissed the appeals, stating that the IBC is not a recovery mechanism and advised the Appellants to pursue other legal remedies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2024 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 329 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384140</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s decision, confirming a pre-existing dispute concerning the quality of goods supplied by the Appellants prior to the Demand Notice under Section 8 of the IBC. It dismissed the appeals, stating that the IBC is not a recovery mechanism and advised the Appellants to pursue other legal remedies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>