<?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>2020 (1) TMI 472 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390859</link>
    <description>A section 8 demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is valid only when it is issued to the correct corporate debtor in relation to the debt and invoices relied upon. Where the invoices were raised in the name of one company but the demand notice and section 9 proceedings were pursued against a different entity with a different CIN and registered address, the notice could not be treated as valid service on the respondent. As valid service under section 8 is a mandatory precondition for a section 9 application, the insolvency admission could not stand and the CIRP against the respondent company was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 08:32:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 472 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390859</link>
      <description>A section 8 demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is valid only when it is issued to the correct corporate debtor in relation to the debt and invoices relied upon. Where the invoices were raised in the name of one company but the demand notice and section 9 proceedings were pursued against a different entity with a different CIN and registered address, the notice could not be treated as valid service on the respondent. As valid service under section 8 is a mandatory precondition for a section 9 application, the insolvency admission could not stand and the CIRP against the respondent company was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>