<?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 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396313</link>
    <description>Pendency of SARFAESI Act action or recovery proceedings before the DRT does not bar initiation or admission of a section 7 insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which operates with overriding effect under section 238. The prior remedies pursued by the financial creditor therefore do not make the insolvency petition non-maintainable. On service, repeated attempts and record evidence of service at the registered office supported the finding of due notice; an alleged defect in service on individual directors, without prejudice or a basis for remand, was insufficient to interfere with admission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2021 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396313</link>
      <description>Pendency of SARFAESI Act action or recovery proceedings before the DRT does not bar initiation or admission of a section 7 insolvency application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which operates with overriding effect under section 238. The prior remedies pursued by the financial creditor therefore do not make the insolvency petition non-maintainable. On service, repeated attempts and record evidence of service at the registered office supported the finding of due notice; an alleged defect in service on individual directors, without prejudice or a basis for remand, was insufficient to interfere with admission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>