<?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 (9) TMI 361 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385593</link>
    <description>The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Petition under Section 7 of the I&amp;B Code due to insufficient evidence of debt existence and disputed possession dates. The Authority underscored the procedural nature of I&amp;B Code proceedings, not as recovery suits, and advised the Petitioner to pursue claims with the appropriate authority. Immediate order communication was directed to ensure compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=586628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 361 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385593</link>
      <description>The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Petition under Section 7 of the I&amp;B Code due to insufficient evidence of debt existence and disputed possession dates. The Authority underscored the procedural nature of I&amp;B Code proceedings, not as recovery suits, and advised the Petitioner to pursue claims with the appropriate authority. Immediate order communication was directed to ensure compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>