<?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 (7) TMI 202 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396533</link>
    <description>Amounts advanced by a director were not proved to be financial debt because no prior borrowing agreement or contractual terms established a lending transaction, and balance-sheet entries alone did not create financial creditor status. The petition was also defective because the demand notice treated the claim as operational debt while the application proceeded as a financial debt, creating a fundamental inconsistency going to maintainability. As the alleged liability was not shown to be clear and undisputed, and the corporate debtor was a continuing concern with assets and operations, initiation of CIRP was not justified and the application failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2020 17:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 202 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396533</link>
      <description>Amounts advanced by a director were not proved to be financial debt because no prior borrowing agreement or contractual terms established a lending transaction, and balance-sheet entries alone did not create financial creditor status. The petition was also defective because the demand notice treated the claim as operational debt while the application proceeded as a financial debt, creating a fundamental inconsistency going to maintainability. As the alleged liability was not shown to be clear and undisputed, and the corporate debtor was a continuing concern with assets and operations, initiation of CIRP was not justified and the application failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>